MEfiDE 


4QC 

66 

Copy 1 





































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































V 
















' 












































































































* 




T ’ • 









































' 
















' - • *" : 

* 

- 

■ '■ mmm 

















■ 

: , ‘ v 

- • 

I®'.'* 

***** :• 




r" . 


r-- t 
















































T' . 







































































V 



















































<• 















































































































/ • 
























RETORT 


STANDARDS 

OF 

WEIGHT AND MEASURE; 


TO THE 


GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND: 


J. H. ALEXANDER, 

Late Engineer of the State. 


BALTIMORE: 
JOHN D. TOY, PRINTER. 


1846. 









\ 

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in mete-yard, in weight, or 
in measure. Levit. xix. 35. 

But thou shalt have a per fect and just weight, a perfect and just measure 
shalt thou have; that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the 
Loan thy GOD giveth thee. Dent. xxv. 15. 





HIS EXCELLENCY 


THOMAS G. PRATT, 

GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND: 

Sir, 

I have the honor herewith to present to your 
Excellency, a Report upon the Standards of Weight and Measure 
legalized by Congress, and disseminated by its authority among 
the several States of the Union; and, principally, upon the con¬ 
struction of the Measures of Length for the State of Maryland, 
which have been executed under my direction conformably to the 
said Standards, and are now ready to be delivered. 

This Report and the construction of such Measures of Length— 
the Standard Yards—are, both, in part fulfillment of the aim of dis¬ 
tributing the United States’ Weights and Measures to the several 
Counties of this State; under authority of a resolution of the 
General Assembly, and by appointment of your Excellency’s Pre¬ 
decessor. 

As far as that appointment is concerned, the aim will be fully at¬ 
tained in the farther construction of a proper number of standard 
copies of the Weights and Capacity-measures; which yet wait to 
be undertaken. 

Your Excellency is well aware that such a work, in its nature, 
requires time; and that the execution of the portion of it now 
completed, has been still farther delayed by causes which were 
without my control. I should have esteemed myself more fortu- 


IV 


nate, if the circumstances of the delay could have contributed to a 
closer revision and perfection of the results. 

But as they are, I allow myself to hope that nothing will be 
found to have been neglected (consistent with the object in view) 
belonging to accuracy of research or exactitude of execution; 
and that the methods (in some respects, new) which have been 
employed, will be recognized as fitting the present Maryland Stan¬ 
dards fully to the use for which they were designed, and even to 
any other scientific or practical purpose. 

1 beg your Excellency to accept my assurances of 

Most profound respect, 

J. H. ALEXANDER. 


Baltimore, 13 Dec. 1845. 


The Establishment of a system of Weights and 
Measures belongs not merely to the domain of me¬ 
chanical science, but enters also into the regions of 
metaphysics and the higher generalizations of his¬ 
tory. How we possess and employ the abstract idea 
of Size and Weight , whence it is that this primitive 
conception has come to be applied with compara¬ 
tively such identity in the successive generations that 
have peopled our globe, and in what manner both 
the idea and its application may be harmonized with 
our other physical perceptions, are, for instance, to¬ 
pics of deep interest to those who busy themselves 
with investigations upon the intellectual and moral 
constitution of our race: while, of daily reference 
and use in individual and social transactions, the 
2 



2 


INTRODUCTION. 


Weights and Measures of communities,—separated, 
it may be, by half the circumference of the earth or 
by still more impassable barriers in the lapse of 
ages,—serve the philosophical historian, when he 
has examined and compared the derivations and 
combinations in the respective systems, the character 
of their units, the adaptation of them to common 
use, and the means employed for their exemplifica¬ 
tion and perpetuation, as so many indications of the 
state of human society in the respective places and 
times and thus of the progress and triumphs of 
Civilization. 

If, then, the aim in the present Establishment had 
been to originate a new system of Standards for our¬ 
selves, it would be proper not only to have regarded 
the subject under the general aspects which I have 
mentioned (for such regard is always necessary in 
the application of any but the most ordinary means 
to the aim) but to have entered into the details and 
presented succinctly the results; to have verified the 
principles upon which an Establishment of the kind 
should properly rest, and which a research, as yet 
comparatively limited and modern, has, it is fair to 
say, left more undetermined than could be desired; 
to have pointed out the modifications, which our 
local circumstances (different of course for each dif¬ 
ferent community) demand, either for the units or for 
their combination; and thus to have authenticated 


DIVISION OF THE REPORT. 


3 


the system which, if impaired or lost, would be 
otherwise incapable of fully identical reproduction. 

But the case now with us being merely the repro¬ 
duction of Standards, whose derivations have been 
already determined by the authority—that of the 
General Government of the Union—to which we, 
with the other several States, have confided the mat¬ 
ter, all these preliminary investigations and settle¬ 
ments may be dispensed with; and the task strictly 
is confined to the selection and use of adequate 
mechanical means for imparting due accuracy and 
permanence to Standards, constructed upon the prin¬ 
ciples and after the patterns that have been furnished. 

I suppose, then, that I shall be found to have given 
sufficient extension to this portion of the work, by 
indicating in this Report the connection of Standards 
of the present Establishment with the past and ex¬ 
isting legislation of our State upon the subject of 
Weights and Measures—the authenticity, values, and 
relations of the several units which have been intro¬ 
duced into the system—and, finally, the details of 
the scientific and artistical methods which have been 
applied in the construction of such portion of them— 
the Measures of Length—as has been by this time 
actually executed. By this arrangement of topics, 
the succeeding Reports, that will be proper to be 
made as the remaining portions—the Weights and 


4 


INTRODUCTION. 


Capacity-measures,—are completed in their natural 
order, will be merely supplemental and will contain 
but such a record of the operations and observations 
as is necessary to vouch for the correctness of the 
Measures themselves and the character of standards 
which is claimed for them, together with suitable 
instructions upon their safe-keeping and the methods 
in which they are to be applied to their destined 
purpose. 



PART I. 

OF THE LEGISLATION IN MARYLAND UPON THE SUBJECT 
OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 

The Bill for Corn-Measures, which was 
passed in the Assembly of freemen of the 
Province, meeting in Jan. 1637, (reckoning, of 
course, according to the old style, by which among 
other things the New-Year begun to be computed 
on Lady-day) not quite three years after the first set¬ 
tlement of the Colony, has come down to us only by 
its title. All the Bills of this session having been 
vetoed by the Lord Proprietary, it was, I suppose, 
not thought necessary subsequently to enter copies 
of them upon the records. 

But it may be presumed that the sub- jggg 
stance of this Bill was preserved in the ^ 
Act for Measures and Weights , which was en¬ 
grossed at the following Assembly in Feb. 1638; 
and which, although not actually passed, has yet 
been preserved in our archives. 

This act provided that u there shall be one stan¬ 
dard measure throughout the province, as shall be 


6 


EARLIEST STANDARDS IN MARYLAND. 


appointed by the Lieut. General.’ 5 It then pre¬ 
scribes, with particularity, how the Dry-measures of 
shelled-corn shall be regulated according to the age 
and presumable dryness of the grain; and finally 
interdicts the use of all weights and steel-yards not 
appointed by the Lieut. General, except the same be 
small and cc sealed in England.” It may be inferred 
upon this, that the sealing in England, which is ad¬ 
mitted in terms to be a voucher for small weights, 
would have been equally accepted for large ones, 
had there been frequent or perhaps any cases of the 
importation of such costly articles for private use in 
the colony: and as the construction of steel-yards in 
general implies the adoption of an uniform measure 
of length, the appointment of the Lieut. General in 
reference to that standard, is to be interpreted as 
applying not to the value of the measure itself, but 
to the formality of its introduction and its consequent 
authenticity. This act may be taken, therefore, to 
shew what otherwise would have been naturally 
expected, viz: the adoption in the Colony of the 
then existing standards of Weight and Measure in 
England. The fact of such actual adoption is also 
demonstrated, though with a negative proof, by the 
non-mention of the subject in the comprehensive 
act (chap, ii.) of this same session, which duly be¬ 
came a statute. What these standards so adopted, 
were, will appear properly in another part of this 
Report. 


WINCHESTER BUSHEL. 


7 


In A ug. 1641, an Act for Measures 
prescribes that “ the measure used in Eng- 
land called the Winchester bushel be only used” as 
the unit of Dry Capacity-measure. The barrel was 
to contain five of such bushels; and the Sheriff of 
each County was directed “to procure a good bushel 
to be made and sized as above/ 5 and was to have “a 
seal whereby he shall seal that and all other mea¬ 
sures/ 5 and “at the expiration of his office shall de¬ 
liver the said measure and seal to his successor. 55 

In Oct. 1654; during the first Assembly 1(554 
that was held under the Protectorate of 
Great Britain; the next act was passed relating to 
the Weights and Measures of the Colony. As it is 
expressed with a sort of stern brevity; quite worthy 
of the Protector himself; and strongly contrasting 
with the copiousness of phrase admitted both before 
and afterwards; I shall insert it in full from the exist¬ 
ing document among the records of the Land- 
Office; as follows: 

“It is enacted that there shall be a standard of 
Weights and Measures throughout this province; 
and that every County shall take the speediest course 
that may be for the providing of such standards; 
and be at the charge of them for their own County. 55 

At April session; 1658; the first one 
immediately following the quasi-restora- ~ 
tion of the province to Lord Baltimore under the 
Governor Fendall; (there had been but one session; 


8 


EARLY MARYLAND MINT AND COINAGE. 


and that of short duration, intervening between this 
and the one just mentioned of 1654; for Cromwell 
in his heart does not seem to have been more fond of 
representative assemblies than the kingly Person 
whom he had dethroned) was passed an Act con¬ 
cerning the gunge of Tobacco-Hhds.; by which it 
was provided that all such Hhds. “ which shall here¬ 
after be made in this province shall be of the size of 
43 inches in length and 27 inches in the head and 
not under the size of 42 inches in length and 26 
inches in the head. 55 These continued to be the 
legal dimensions for upwards of thirty years. 

1002 An Act concerning the setting up of a 
Mint in the Province of Maryland , which 
was passed three years after (in 1661) serves us to 
shew the recognition and use of the English money 
(then, Troy) weights in the Colony. It required, 
that the coin struck thereat should be of as good 
silver (there is no mention made of gold) as the 
English sterling money; and that every shilling so 
coined should weigh above nine pence of such silver, 
and other pieces in proportion. 

And that the arts subordinate to Weights and 
Measures in this regard, had attained here a certain 
perfection, we learn from Folkes: who, in his Table 
of English Silver Coins, etc., mentions that “the 
Lord Baltimore, the Lord Proprietary of Maryland— 
coined there very handsome shillings, half-shillings 
and groats; all having his own head bare with the 


STANDARDS UNDER THE ACT OF HENRY THE SEVENTH. 9 

legend caecilius. dns. terrae. mariae. etc. on 
the one side; and his arms under the crown of his 
palatinate, with the values xn., vi., or iv. and the 
motto crescite. et. multiplicamini., on the re¬ 
verse. It may be noted/ 5 he continues, “that all 
these American coins [he had been speaking just 
before of certain pieces coined in New England] 
want better than two pennies in the shilling of the 
weight of the English. 55 He did not know that this 
was the intentional accuracy of the artist. 

In 1671, was passed a new Act for pro- 
viding a Standard with English Weights 
and Measures in the several and respective Counties 
ivithin this Province. Its preamble recites, “that 
much fraud and deceite is practised—by false weights 
and measures; 55 and it then goes on to enact, that no 
one shall “make use of, in tradeing, any other weights 
or measures than are used and made according to the 
statute of Henry the Seventh. 55 The statute here 
referred to, was that of 12 Henry VII, and dates in 
1496; of which, in another part of this Report, 
more particular notice will have to be taken again. 
The Act then appoints one person, in each of the 
nine existing Counties, to “sett up a standard at their 
own houses and provide, by the next shipping or the 
shipping then next following at farthest, twelve half- 
hundred weights, a quarterne, half-quarterne, seven 
pounds, four pounds, two pounds, one pound. Alsoe 
each person above named are to procure six stamps for 
3 


10 STEEL-YARDS CARRYING GROSS WEIGHT. 

the marking of stylyards and weights; the first six to 
be marked with the letter A. for St. Mary’s County,” 
and so on to the letter I., inclusive; and also “nine 
irons numbered from one to nine, and another with 
a cypher, for the numbering of stillyards and pea, 
that they might not be changed.” We may con¬ 
clude that the weights (as might be supposed from 
the establishment of a mint) were considered well 
authenticated; especially as, directly afterwards, the 
persons named were “to procure brass measures of 
ell and yard to be sealed in England; likewise a 
sealed bushell, half-bushell, peck and gallon of Win¬ 
chester measure; gallon, potle, quart, pint and half¬ 
pint of wine measure; with three burnt stamps for 
the wooden measures, and three other stamps for the 
pewter measures, to be all of the same letter wdth 
their other stampes.” The Act then goes on to say 
that the barrel is to contain five bushels; and it and 
the other measures and weights are to be brought 
once a year to the houses of the persons aforesaid in 
the respective Counties, to be tried and marked. A 
penalty of 10001b. of tobacco for every default is 
then imposed upon selling by other Weights and 
Measures than have been so tried and marked; steel¬ 
yards “carrying grosse weight,” i. e. graduated by 
the long hundred, are positively interdicted; and a 
fee of two shillings for every steel-yard and of six¬ 
pence for every wooden and pewter measure tried, 
is allowed to the standard-keepers. The remain- 


EARLIEST CODIFICATION IN MARYLAND. 


11 


der of the Act provides for a levy of 1600 lb. of 
tobacco on each County, to pay for procuring the 
standards, with power to the Commissioners of the 
several Counties to audit the respective accounts and 
make an additional levy if necessary. In case of the 
death of any of the persons named, (their refusal to 
serve does not seem to have entered into the account) 
the Commissioners in the proper County were to 
appoint a successor. 

The Act was in terms to continue for three years; 
but it was re-enacted or revived under other titles 
from time to time: so that it may be regarded as 
having remained substantially in force until 1715. 

In 1676, there was had a sort of codifi- 
cation or, as the compiler, Bacon, terms 
it, a fixing of the laws to this period, upon the occa¬ 
sion of the demise of the Baron Caecilius; his son and 
successor, Charles, who had for many years resided 
in the province as Governor, being now present and 
giving his voice as Proprietary. Among the results 
of this crisis, was the literal repeal of the act of 1658 
relating to the guage of Tobacco-hhds., which has 
been before mentioned: but the substance of the act 
and the prescribed guage were still retained in a 
new Act touching Coopers and guage of Tobacco 
Hhds ., now added to the Laws. 

In 1692, during the abeyance of the 1592 . 
Proprietaryship and sequestration of the 
province to the crown of William & Mary, occurred 


NEW POWERS OF THE COUNTY COURTS. 

one of the modifications of the law of 1671, which 
were just now alluded to, in the passage of an Act 
for the settling of a Standard with English Weights 
and Measures within the several and respective Coun¬ 
ties of this province. In this, the old Act, which had 
been omitted to be re-enacted the year before and 
had expired therefore by its own limitation, is re¬ 
ferred to and revived as nearly as possible in phrase. 
The only substantial differences are in giving now to 
the Justices of the respective County Courts, instead 
of the County-commissioners, the power of appoint¬ 
ing the standard-keepers; and in making it the duty 
of such Justices to replace all such standards as 
should be lost or impaired. A new County, Ccecil, 
had in the interval been erected; and a tenth set 
of Weights and Measures, to be marked in regular 
order with the letter K., were directed to be procured 
for that County. 

In the same year, was passed a new Act touching 
Coopers and the guage of Tobacco Hhds.; which was 
limited to three years, but in fact lasted only two. It 
provided a new guage of 44 inches in length and 31 
inches in the head, and not under 43 inches in length 
and 30 inches head; being an enlargement of 1 inch 
and 4 inches, in the two dimensions respectively, 
above the old dimensions. The coopers, who, from 
the way in which the law speaks of them, seem to 
have required a stimulus and a regulation as regards 
quantity, quality and finish of their work, are enjoined 


NEW GUAGE FOR TOBACCO HOGSHEADS. 


13 


to complete one-half part of all and every contract, 
that they or any of them may enter into, by the tenth 
day of October and the other half by the tenth day of 
December in any and every year; and all hhds. were 
to be made of stuff, the timber of which had been 
felled by the last of April, and which had been riven 
or got out by the last of July, and were not to weigh, 
empty, more than 90 pounds. 

Little more than two years after, in Sep. j^g^ 
1694, was passed a new Act under the 
same title; by which of course the former became 
inoperative. By this, the hhds. were to be 48 inches 
long and 32 inches in the head, and not less than 46 
and 31 inches respectively: the particulars of the late 
Act, as to contracts and the periods of their fulfilment 
and of the felling and riving of the stuff, are repeated 
here: but the fixed tare of 90 lb. per hhd. is dis¬ 
pensed with; and instead, the cooper is to mark the 
actual tare, together with the initials of his name, 
upon the bilge and to be allowed a margin of five 
pounds either w T ay for an error in weighing, without 
being subject to the rather heavy penalty which the 
Act imposes. 

In April 1700, the law of 1692, relating j^qq 
to the settling of the Standards was con- ~ 
firmed; and an additional Act to the one just men¬ 
tioned touching Coopers and the guage of Tobacco - 
Hhds. was made. But this last Act is only a penal one 
against the planters, whom it charges with being the 


14 EXCHEQUER STANDARDS UNDER QUEEN ANNE. 


u principal transgressors” of the law of 1694; and 
instructs the Grand-Juries to bring in indictments 
against all such offenders. 

J 7 Q 4 Another Act for ascertaining the gnage 
of Tobacco Hhds. which was intended to 
take the place of all the foregoing, was passed by the 
Assembly in 1704. By this, a penalty was imposed 
upon any one for using hhds. exceeding 48 inches in 
the length of the stave and 32 inches in the head, or 
less than 46 inches in the staves and 30 inches in the 
head; the true tare, within 5 lb. over or under, was 
to be marked upon the bilge; and finally, “ for the 
better ascertaining what tare shall be allowed,” the act 
says, ec that the receiver of any hhd. of tobacco shall 
pay and allow to the owner or owners thereof, for 
each hhd. received, the sum of 40 lb. of tobacco; 
deducting the same out of the gross weight of each 
hhd. marked on the bilge, and no more.” This last 
provision was equivalent to making the purchaser pay 
for about one half of the habitual tare of the hhds. 
But the dis-assent of Queen Anne, which was ex¬ 
pressed in 1708, abrogated the whole law; and the 
subject returned to where it had been placed by the 
statute of 1694. 

In the same year, 1704, the Act relating to the 
Standard of English Weights and Measures , recites 
that u there is now a standard of weights and mea¬ 
sures, agreeable to the standard—in Her Majesty’s 
Exchequer in England, settled with the several Coun- 


FOREIGN COINS RATED BY TROY WEIGHT. 


15 


ties of this provinceand goes on to enact that every 
person shall have his weights and measures tried 
yearly, allowing a fee to the standard-keeper of one 
shilling for each steel-yard (one half of the allowance 
in 1671 and 1692) and of sixpence apiece (the old 
fee) for the capacity-measures, “ except they come 
out of England and are there stamped.” 

At Dec. Session 1708, was passed the ^Qg 
Act for settling the rates of foreign silver 
Coins within this province . This refers to the Queen’s 
proclamation of 1704 and to the Act of Parliament of 
the year just previous (stat. 6 Anne) for “ ascer¬ 
taining the rates of foreign coins in Her Majesty’s 
plantations;” and closes with a Table in which the 
mint-weight, intrinsic worth, and provincial current 
value of various Spanish, Portuguese, French, Fle¬ 
mish, and German coins are stated. This is of no 
farther interest to our present purpose than to show 
the identity of the Troy weights accepted in the pro¬ 
vince, with those of England; and that the proportion 
between currency and sterling (viz. as 3 to 4), which 
had been established by the Mint-law of 1661 and the 
Coins-act of 1686, was still recognized. 

The guage of Tobacco-hhds. was ascer- 
tained afresh in Oct. 1711, by an Act passed 
for the purpose; and which also comprehended certain 
penal provisions in regard to cutting and defacing 
tobacco taken on board vessels upon freight. Every 
one, after the tenth of October in the ensuing year, was 


16 


FOURTH REVISION OF STANDARDS. 


forbidden, under a forfeiture equivalent to the contents 
of a loosely packed hhd., from having any hhd. made 
larger than 48 inches in the stave and 30 inches dia¬ 
meter of head within the croze. As in the former 
Acts, the tare was to be marked upon the bilge; and an 
allowance of 5 lb. was made for error in tare in either 
sense, against forfeiture on the part of the cooper. 

2725 In April 1715, the first year after the 
accession of George I, passed the Act re¬ 
lating to the Standard of English Weights and Mea¬ 
sures; which continued in the Statute-book during 
the whole remaining period of our colonial existence, 
and was not indeed formally abrogated for a half cen¬ 
tury afterwards. The preamble to this is a testi¬ 
mony to the necessity of proper materials and modes 
of construction for objects which perform so important 
a function in a Commonwealth as such standards. 
The Act of 1704 had announced them as cc settled,” 
and therefore existing in good condition, in the seve¬ 
ral Counties: ten years later, this act declares that 
“ standards—are very much impaired in several of 
the counties of this province; and in some, wholly 
lost or unfit for use.” The remainder of the statute 
is very similar to the old one of 1692: the Justices of 
the County Courts, respectively, are directed under 
penalty, to complete and to procure anew where ne¬ 
cessary the collection of standards as before prescribed, 
and “ for the better preservation of them for the fu¬ 
ture, to take good and sufficient security” from the 


DETERIORATION IN THE STAPLE OF TOBACCO. 


17 


persons with whom they shall be entrusted. The 
former provisions are then re-enacted, as to the an¬ 
nual trial of all weights and measures and the fees 
therefor ; penalties for refusals and omissions are pre¬ 
scribed ; and to guard against an undue captiousness, 
any one, who shall, by impeaching the accuracy of 
steel-yards duly proven and stamped, compel the 
owner to have them tried over within the year, is 
declared (as in 1671) liable to pay the cost of such 
trial if the measure in question shall prove to be 
correct. 

The deterioration in the staple of Tobacco 
has been already indicated by the progressive 
increase in the capacity of the hhds.—the commer¬ 
cial unit of value of that article; till they had come to 
contain upwards of 50 per cent, more than had been 
the legal capacity in 1658. It is more distinctly 
averred, however, in an Act which also was passed 
this year, ascertaining the Guage and Tare of Tobacco 
Hhds., and providing for several other matters not 
relevant to the present inquiry. This law, after allud¬ 
ing to the insufficiency of former Acts to secure ob¬ 
servance, goes on to say that, the generality of the 
tobacco grown being so trashy and light, enough 
cannot be got in a hhd. of the late guage of 30 inches 
across the head (prescribed by the Act of 1711) to pay 
expenses; some having even been brought in debt by 
their shipment: and while it declares that nothing 
herein is to be construed as abrogating or repealing 
4 


18 


SIZE OF HOGSHEADS NEARLY DOUBLED* 


the said Act of 1711, it yet legalizes as a maximum a 
length of 48 inches in the staves and a width of 32 
inches in the head within the croze and a diameter 
at the bilge (this is the first time of specifying such a 
measurement) of 37 inches ,—“ thirty-six inches being 
supposed a competent guage.” These dimensions 
give a capacity not very far from twice as great as that 
recognized fifty years before. 

This Act was to remain in force, only 
until the end of the session, which should 
happen next after 10 May 1716: and accordingly 
at the session of July 1716, a new one, in title and 
substance somewhat altered, ascertaining the Guage 
of Tobacco Hhds ., etc., was passed. But the terms 
of this, so far as relates to the guage, are a transcript 
of the former. The new enactment, rather than con¬ 
tinuance, seems to have been more appropriate, inas¬ 
much as in the interval, the Province had been re¬ 
stored to the Proprietary sovereignty. 


1717. 


This last Act was to continue in force till 


29 September, 1720; but in the following 
year, 1717, another new one, under the same title, 
retaining the same particulars as to guage, etc., and 
applying for the same period, took its place. 

273 Q By five successive renewals, this Act of 
1717 was continued in force until 1730: 
in May of that year, an Act for improving the Staple 
of Tobacco , etc., whose aim was especially to restrain 
and regulate the growth and culture of the plant, con- 


ASSIZE OF BARRELS AND CASKS. 


19 


firmed the prescribed guage and some other particu¬ 
lars of the Act of 1717, and extended so much of its 
provisions till 29 Sept 1732. 

At July session 1732, these were all re- ^732 
placed by a new law ascertaining the Guage 
and Tare of Tobacco Tlhds.; which however ^gg 
repeats verbatim the guage of 1715. And 
the same dimensions are retained in the Act of 1736; 
which by successive continuances was prolonged until 
1 Dec. 1748, when it expired under the first general 
Tobacco-inspection Law of Maryland. 

Up to this time, there had been no ex- 
press assize of barrels or casks; except by 
the Acts of 1641 and 1671, which merely prescribed 
that the barrel for grain should contain five Winches¬ 
ter bushels. The subject was most likely supposed 
to be provided for in the last-named Act, recognizing 
all the units and combinations adopted by the English 
statute of 12 Henry VII; a statute which, by a singu¬ 
lar fatality of error, w T ould have legalized, had it been 
practically carried out, neither the Winchester bushel 
nor the habitual wine gallon of the Province. At any 
rate it was found necessary now, “ for prevention of 
frauds and abuses frequently practised by greedy and 
avaricious traders/ 5 (as the record says) to prescribe 
in terms the Guage of Barrels for pork, beef, pitch, 
tar, turpentine; and Tare of Barrels for flour or 
bread. By this, all barrels in which any of the articles 
of the first mentioned class should be packed or filled 


20 


FIRST GENERAL TOBACCO-INSPECTION LAW. 


were to contain at least 31.5 gallons, wine measure; 
and the contents of pork or beef in such barrel u at ex¬ 
portation or sale, shall be, at the least, 220 lb.” A 
penalty of 5 shillings currency, for every barrel, was 
imposed upon all persons who should, after 1 October 
1746, pack flour or bread for sale and shall not mark 
on the bilge the true tare of said barrel or cask. This 
Act was continued by divers express renewals till 30 
Oct. 1805; and subsequently, by several general reviv¬ 
ing laws, till some years later. Not finding upon a 
moderately accurate research any traces of a specific 
mention, I conclude that it remains substantially in 
force, except as regards flour-barrels, until this day. 
The law of 1786, made with the same purview for the 
(then) town of Baltimore, and prescribing the dimen¬ 
sions of the staves and head, yields a guage in wine 
gallons almost exactly the same as given in this. 

1747 In 1747, to take effect from 1 Dec. 

1748, was made a further alteration in the 
guage of Tobacco-hhds., by a law then passed, 
whose comprehensive purport is that of an Act for 
amending the Staple of Tobacco , for preventing 
fraud in His Majesty's Customs , and for the limita¬ 
tion of Officers' fees; and which has been already 
referred to as the first of the Inspection-laws. By 
this act, the stave-length of 48 inches (prescribed by 
the act of 1736) was still retained; but there is no 
distinction made between the diameters at the head 
and bilge. The sum of these is taken at 70 inches; 


WEIGHT OF THE HOGSHEAD OF TOBACCO. 21 

the distribution of this sum is left unrestricted, on 
the correct supposition that any probable difference 
between two such diameters, to which the conve¬ 
nience or accidents of construction might lead, would 
not materially affect the capacity of the cask. It 
places an additional check, too, against error in this 
regard, by prescribing the nett weight of the hhd. 
when packed, to be 950 lbs.; and it directs farther 
that there be provided, in each of the Warehouses 
authorized by the act, “ a sufficient beam, weights, 
and scales, to weigh 1200 gross lbs. at the least, and 
a set of small weights such as are or ought to be 
provided for the standards of each County.” 

The same guage is retained in the sec- 
ond Inspection-law under the same title, 
passed six years afterwards; but the nett weight of 
the hhd. packed, is in this omitted, though the pre¬ 
scription in regard to the weighing apparatus is 
retained. There were several continuances and sup¬ 
plements to this Law, each leaving these points as in 
the original; until they were all finally merged in 
the third Inspection-law of 1763. 

This last Act, too, prescribes the guage j^g 
in the same terms as in the former; it 
makes no provision as to the nett weight of the hhd. 
packed; but it raises the calibre of the scales up to 
1500 lbs.; whence we may conclude that the to¬ 
bacco was now being better packed. The requisi¬ 
tion as to the small weights, is repeated; and the 


22 ENFORCEMENT OF THE STANDARD UPON BUYERS. 


County Justices are farther required, “ sometime in 
the month of March in every year, to appoint two or 
more of their number to view the said scales, and 
examine and try the weights at the several Ware¬ 
houses by the standard weights of the County;” in 
order to the necessary repair and that cc the weights, 
if found deficient or differing from the lawful stan¬ 
dard—may be made conformable.” This Act, after 
divers continuances and supplements, expired on 
1 Oct. 1771; but the dimensions it prescribed, con¬ 
tinued to be the legal ones during a period succeed¬ 
ing, of sixty-five years. 

In 1765, a supplement was made to the 
Act of fifty years before, relating to the 
Standard of English Weights and Measures , in order 
to remedy a rather curious disorder. It recites that 
no penalty has been hitherto imposed upon buyers by 
dry measures other than such as have been tried and 
stamped at the standard; but that now u many buyers 
of grain, flax-seed and other commodities, when the 
people have carried them a great distance to market, 
refuse to buy them, unless by measure or measures 
of their own; which have been found on trial to be 
larger than the standard aforesaid:” and it therefore 
enacts, that buyers shall hereafter employ unstamped 
measures at their own peril, and under the penalty 
of £5 currency for every offence, .if such measures 
shall be found larger than the standard. At least 
such is the construction that, in harmony with the 


ASSIZE OF BARRELS FOR FLOUR. 


2 3 


principles of the act of 1671, I place upon the terms 
of this; but if its intention was that no unstamped 
measure should be employed in any bargain and sale, 
with or without the consent of the bargainers, all 
that can be said is that the legislation then was both 
minute and comprehensive, and that the standard- 
keepers of that day enjoyed offices more lucrative 
than they do at the present. I have been thus dif¬ 
fuse upon this law, because it has never been specifi¬ 
cally repealed; and unless it is held to be virtually 
annulled by the Act of 1825, it is yet in force. 

The assize of barrels for Flour had not 
been hitherto regulated in terms; the Acts 
of 1641 and 1671, both, require barrels in general to 
contain five Winchester bushels; and that of 1745, 
which prescribed the contents in wine measure for 
certain barrels, in regard to flour only requires the 
tare of the barrel or cask to be distinctly marked 
upon its bilge. In 1771, however, the growth and 
commerce of Baltimore induced the passage of a 
law, presenting in its title a very comprehensive 
enumeration. It professes to be, in order to prevent 
the exportation of flour , staves , and shingles , not mer¬ 
chantable, from the Town of Baltimore in Baltimore 
County; and to regulate the weight of hay and mea¬ 
sure of grain , salt , flax-seed and fire-wood within the 
said Town , etc. etc. By this, Flour-barrels are re¬ 
quired to have staves of the length of 28 inches and 
headings of 18 inches; whose contents (3^ Win- 


24 


GUAGING OF CASKS FOR LIOUORS. 


Chester bushels) is about equal to the product, in 
flour, from five bushels of wheat. The other articles 
were to be weighed or measured, according to the 
County standard. This law was continued by seve¬ 
ral re-enactments and revivals, (though for the flour 
part it lasted only ten years, being then abrogated by 
another ) until it was finally merged in the charter of 
Baltimore, in 1796. Although a local Act in terms, 
yet from its nature, it was intended to operate 
throughout the State. 

2774 The same view is to be taken of another 
local act passed in Mar. 1774, by the last 
Assembly under the Proprietary government, for 
regulating the guaging of Casks in the Town of Balti¬ 
more; although it prescribes nothing as to the dimen¬ 
sions, except that the guaging shall be according to 
“the English standard and excise of wine measure. 55 
It was repeatedly renewed until the Baltimore City 
charter. 

27 gj In Nov. 1781, occurred the abrogation 
ofthelawof 1771 (as far as related to Flour 
barrels,) in the passage of an Act to prevent the expor¬ 
tation of Bread and Flour , not merchantable ; and for 
other purposes . It contains a minute exposition of the 
number of hoops and nails which should go to the 
construction, “after the first of August next, of all 
flour-casks brought to Baltimore-town for exporta¬ 
tion 55 —particulars which are not of interest to be de¬ 
tailed here: but it then prescribes “ the following 


THE HALF-BARREL FOR FLOUR. 


25 


dimensions, viz. the staves to be of the length of 27 
inches, but of different diameter, at their heads, accor¬ 
ding to their numbers; that is to say: 

Cask No. 1, diam. 18.5 inches at the head; to contain 224 lb. 
No. 2, “ 17.5 “ “ 196 “ 

No. 3, “ 16.5 “ “ 168 “ 

Such were the provisions made by this Act. I have 
found no express continuance of the whole of it, be¬ 
yond 1798; though some of its prescriptions are still 
habitually of force, as for instance the weight and 
dimensions of cask No. 2, which are those of the 
ordinary Hour-barrel. As far as I am informed, the 
other two species of casks were never introduced into 
commerce; but the cask now marked No. 4, which is 
the common half-barrel, containing 98 lb., most likely 
grew into acceptation out of this law. The number, 
dimensions and weight of such a cask have never been 
specifically defined, that I know of; although the cask 
itself has been legalized by name, in more than one 
succeeding Act among those relating to the Inspection 
of Flour. 

It may be remarked here, that the scale of weight 
adopted by this law, is not symmetrical with the di¬ 
mensions ; and we must either suppose that accuracy 
of calculation was neglected, or that the flour in the 
different classes of casks was intended to be of differ¬ 
ent specific weights, which may be produced either 
by different grades of bolting or different degrees of 
packing in the barrels. If the weight of a bushel of 
5 


26 


SPANISH riLLAR-DOLLARS. 


water at 62° be called 100; the weight per bushel of 
flour in the casks, would be represented very nearly 
by the numbers 86, 84, and 81, respectively. 

At this same session, occurred an important change 
in the currency; by the Act, declaring what Foreign 
gold and silver Coin shall be deemed the current money 
of this State. The old law of 1708, under a similar 
title, as Avell as the Coins-act of 1686, had given a 
current advance of ^ above the intrinsic value; by 
which, for instance, the Spanish pillar-dollar, (that had 
been taken as a standard for European continental 
coin, and was intrinsically worth according to the 
then value of silver 4/6) was legalized at 6 shillings: 
the Act just doubled the current advance, and raised 
this same piece, the dollar, to 7/6. Estimating by 
weight, the intrinsic value of this was 61.714 pence 
per ounce, current in 1708 at 82.286 pence per 
ounce: it was now rated at 102 pence per ounce. The 
ratio of this advance was most likely not an arbitrary 
one; but had grown from circumstances, quite foreign 
to the affairs of the Province, and connected solely 
with the accidents of the Spanish coinage. The pillar 
dollar, which in 1708 was rated at 6 shillings, was the 
old plate (plata antigua , still known in Spanish nu¬ 
mismatics as having been coined before 1686,) weigh¬ 
ing 420 grains Troy; there was another dollar recog¬ 
nized in the same law as the new plate (plata nueva y 
coined since 1686) which weighed but 336 grains. In 
the lapse of a century, the old plate became more and 


ASSIZE OF CASKS FOR SALTED PROVISIONS. 


21 


more rare; and was gradually replaced by the new; 
whose lightness of weight was not appreciable by 
every hand, and which came therefore to be accepted 
under the currency of the old, and to be worth 72 
pence. Now 336 is to 72 pence, as 480 (grains in an 
ounce) is to 102 pence, very nearly. It was in this 
way that a current acceptation grew to be legalized. 
This Act was renewed at various times, till after the 
commencement of the present century; and, indeed, 
was not formally superseded until 1812. 

I have already alluded to the Act of 1786, ^g^ 

which is for the Inspection of Salted Provi- 
sions. By the old law of 1745, casks for such articles, 
were to contain 31.5 gallons, wine measure: by this, 
cc all beef and pork barrels—imported into Baltimore- 
town from any part of the State” (which makes it more 
than a local law) are to have staves of the length of 29 
inches, and be 18 inches diameter at the head. This 
is equivalent to a guage of 31.9 gallons, wine measure. 
Fish-barrels are to have staves 28 inches in length, 
and be 18 inches diameter at the head. The quantity 
of 220 lb. nett weight, prescribed by the old law, is 
continued in this. 

In 1789, an Act to regulate the Inspec- j^gg 
tion of Tobacco , required the standard- 
keepers of each County “ to attend the Justices with 
the standard weights of the County, and assist in ad¬ 
justing the beams and scales and trying the weights 
at the several Warehouses.” There were many sup- 


28 


MUNICIPAL STANDARDS IN BALTIMORE. 


plements and continuances to this Act; but it, with 
all its dependencies, was finally repealed in 1801. 
1790 In 1796, was passed the charter of the 
City of Baltimore; by which, among other 
things, the local power was given to the corporation 
u to establish and regulate inspections within the city, 
subject to the future Acts of the General Assembly; to 
regulate and fix the assize of bread; to provide for 
the safe-keeping and preservation of the Standard of 
Weight and Measure, fixed by Congress; and for the 
regulating thereby all weights and measures used 
within the City and precincts.” 

jgQ j In 1801, an Act to regulate the Inspection 
of Tobacco , repealed, as I have already said, 
the late Act of 1789 upon the same subject. It con¬ 
tains, however, the same provisions as that Act with 
regard to the standard-keepers, and prescribes for the 
hhds. the same dimensions as the Inspection-law of 
1763. These dimensions continued till 1828. 

A supplement to the Baltimore charter, 
in 1805, refers to the powers before given 
to the corporation in relation to Weights and Mea¬ 
sures ; and enacts that “ inasmuch as Congress have 
not yet fixed any Standard of Weight and Measure, 
and as much fraud and imposition may be practised 
from the want of such a standard,” the Mayor and 
City Council shall regulate all weights and measures 
within the City and precincts cc by the present stand¬ 
ard, until one shall be determined on by Congress.” 


1805. 


RECOGNITION OF UNITED STATES’ COIN. 


29 


This question of the fixing of a Stan- j 8 qq 
dard by Congress, was exciting a good deal 
of interest and attention about this time, and drew 
many Memorials on the subject from different parts 
of the Union. In 1809, Maryland took public part 
in it, by the passage of a resolution; instructing her 
Senators, and requesting her Representatives, a to 
use all proper means and exertions to procure the 
passing a law, establishing Weights and Measures . 55 
I do not find on the Journal of the U. S. Senate any 
notice of this resolution. 

An Act of 1811 , to regulate the Inspection ^ g j j 
of Lumber , requires that u all planks, boards, v —^ 
or scantling, not exceeding 8 inches square—shall be 
measured by the rule of board-measure, except boards 
under § of an inch thick, which shall be measured on 
the surface;—all timber above 8 inches square, to be 
measured, if required by the seller; and all laths for 
plastering—shall be put up in bundles of 100 , each, 
and shall be—not less than 4 feet in length—W of 
an inch in thickness and—one inch wide . 55 To this, 
there was a supplement in 1817; which does not alter 
the dimensions, and relates principally to the quality 
of the articles. 

In 1812, all the regulations hitherto made 1812 
in the Province or State, regarding the use 
of Troy weight for coins, were merged in the Act re¬ 
cognizing the Coins of the United States , and the value 
of Foreign Coins as established—by Congress. 


30 


MEASURE OF THE CORD FOR WOOD. 


jgjg A new object of Inspection and measure- 
ment, came up in 1816; in the Act to regu¬ 
late the cording of Fire-wood in the City of Baltimore. 
Although in title, it refers only to Baltimore, yet it is 
general in its application; requiring that “all fire-wood 
brought to Baltimore [and of course cut for sale, any 
where else in the State] shall be at least 4 feet in 
length, including one-half of the kerf; and not less 
than two inches diameter at the smaller end:—every 
cord shall be 8 feet in length, 4 feet in breadth, and 
4 feet in height; and where the wood to be measured 
exceeds or falls short of 4 feet in length, the cord 
shall be proportionably increased or diminished.” 
The provision, in regard to the diameter at the 
smaller end, has been dispensed with, subsequently. 
2027 In 1817, an Act to regulate the Inspec - 
tion of Salted Fish , modified the former law 
of 1786; leaving the length of the staves (as before) 
28 inches, but reducing the diameter of the head 
between the chines, to 17 inches, and requiring the 
contents to be not less than 29 gallons, nor more than 
31 gallons. The mean capacity would demand a 
clear diameter, at the bilge, of 18J- inches. The 
tierces were to hold not less than 45 gallons; and the 
half-barrels not less than 15 gallons. The packing 
in kegs of less than 10 gallons, is expressly excluded 
from any operation of this Act. 

A similar exclusion was made, by a supplement at 
the same session, in regard to fish put up at the Po- 


FIFTH REVISION OF STANDARDS. 


31 


tomac Fisheries for sale in ports of Virginia or the 
District; and in the following session, a jg^g 
further modification of the original Act was 
made, in allowing Fish-barrels to be u passed, in case 
they are of the following dimensions, viz: the staves 
28 inches in length, and a half inch thick; the diam¬ 
eter, at the cut head, shall be 17f inches; the chines 
shall be 1^ inch in depth; and the bilge of each and 
every barrel shall be not less than 20 inches in diam¬ 
eter.” These dimensions appear to have been ar¬ 
rived at with more than usual accuracy: they give, 
almost exactly, a capacity of 31 wine gallons. 

The Act of 1823, to establish State jg 23 
Warehouses for the Inspection of Tobacco 
in the City of Baltimore , has no farther connection 
with Weights and Measures than that, by sec. 9, 
the inspectors are directed to provide “ weights and 
scales to weigh 1500 gross lb. at the least, and a set 
of small weights such as are provided for the stan¬ 
dard Weights of said City.” 

In 1825, passed the Act for regulating 
and inspecting Weights and Measures used 
in this State , hitherto under the domain of the old 
Act of 1715. This new law enacts 

1°. That the Governor and Council, on or before 
1 Aug. 1826, should furnish the Levy Court of each 
County with a standard of each of the several kinds 
of Weights and Measures used at the Custom-house 
in Baltimore. 


32 


MARYLAND STANDARD. 


2°. That the Levy Court, on or before 1 May in 
every year, should appoint a keeper of the standards 
as furnished; taking a bond in the penalty of 500 
dollars for malfeasance or damage to the standards. 

3°. That the standard-keepers shall once a year 
inspect, and stamp or brand with the letters M. S. 
(Maryland Standard) in the most effectual manner, 
all weights and measures used in the vending of 
articles within this State: the employment of Weights 
and Measures otherwise, shall be under a penalty not 
exceeding 20 dollars. 

4°. That a penalty of the same amount be imposed 
upon the employment of weights and measures 
once stamped or branded, but now degraded or con¬ 
demned. 

5°. That all scale beams shall be inspected and 
stamped, as aforesaid; under like penalty. 

6°. That the keepers of the standards attend, at 
least once a year, at the different markets, towns 
and villages of their County; and at the public in¬ 
spection Warehouses, at least twice a year; after giv¬ 
ing public notice: they shall inspect and adjust all 
beams, weights, and measures, and shall enter such 
adjustment in a register, with the names of the par¬ 
ties, to be submitted to the Levy Court. 

7°. That a penalty of 5 dollars be imposed upon all 
and every person or persons, for each day they shall 
neglect or refuse to have their weights and mea¬ 
sures inspected, after having been required by the 


DETAILS OF THE STAND ARDS-ACT. 


33 


standard-keeper: and, in case the keepers have rea¬ 
son to suspect that such neglect proceeds from a 
fraudulent intent, they be authorized to examine; 
and, if the suspected articles should prove defective, 
to seize upon, adjust, and sell them for the use of 
the County. 

8°. That annual statements be returned by the 
keepers to the Levy Courts respectively, of the 
amount of money received. 

9°. That the compensation of the keepers be as 
their Levy Courts shall allow; to be levied for as 
other County-charges. 

10°. That when the keepers are applied to, to 
alter any beam, weight or measure, so as to make it 
correct, they shall be allowed an additional reasona¬ 
ble compensation; to be paid by the applicant. 

11°. That one half of all fines and forfeitures un¬ 
der this Act, shall go to the use of the County; the 
other half to the informer, who shall be a competent 
witness of fact. 

12°. That the Treasurer for the Western Shore 
pay any sum necessary to carry out this Act; which, 
however, 

13°. Is excluded from operation upon private per¬ 
sons not in trade, or at all upon the City of Balti¬ 
more; provided the Baltimore ordinances make their 
standards uniform with the rest of the State. 

It does not particularly interest our present in¬ 
quiry, but it is worthy of remark that this new law 
6 


34 


DYCUs’ HYDROMETER. 


makes no provision as to the fees which shall be paid 
for adjusting standards: it is presumable, therefore, 
that the intention was to leave this point where it 
had been placed by the act of 1715. We shall find, 
after this date, some supplements by which a special 
regulation in this particular is made for a few of the 
Counties. 

1827 Two years afterwards, was passed the 
Act to regulate the Guaging of Casks and 

the Inspection of domestic Distilled Liquors in this 
State . It prescribes, among other things, that the 
guagers to be appointed under it, “ shall conform to 
the present Baltimore standard of wine measure,” 
using correct guaging instruments and Dycus’ hydro¬ 
meter, 85 degrees of which is the standard of proof- 
spirit: but whenever the government of the United 
States shall determine to employ a different hydro¬ 
meter, the State-guagers shall procure and use hy¬ 
drometers of the same description. I believe, that 
the one mentioned still continues to be employed. 

1828 Up t0 the legal dimensions of 

Tobacco-hhds. (though the actual ones had 

varied,) had remained the same that were fixed in 
1747. By a law of Dec. session of this year, to 
take effect on and after 1 Dec. 1829, increased di¬ 
mensions were authorized, viz: “not exceeding 50 
inches in the length of the staves and 76 inches in 
the whole diameters within the staves, at the croze 
and bilge.” As this is the last law regulating the 


SIZE OF HOGSHEADS AT DIFFERENT EPOCHS. 35 

size of these hhds., I shall present in one view here, 
the changes which have been made, and when, in 
that particular; from the first time of its being the 
subject of a statute. The numbers in the column 
headed cc proportionate capacity/ 5 happen to be about 
ItV per cent, below the respective actual contents in 
wine gallons. 


Table shewing the legal Dimensions and proportionate Capacity for 
Tobacco-Hhds. at the several epochs below. 


Date. 

Stave-length. Head-diam. 

Bilge 

Sura of Diam. 

Proport. 

Remarks. 

Max. 

Min. 

Max. 

Min. 

Diam. Head & Bilge. Capacity. 


in. 

in. 

in. 

in. 

in. 

in. 



1658. 

43 

42 

27 

26 



100 


1692. 

44 

43 

31 

30 

. 


136 

hhd. to weigh 90lb. 

1694. 

48 

46 

32 

31 



156 

tare to be marked. 

1704. 

48 

46 

32 

30 



161 | 

> tare to be rated by 
» purch’r at 40lb tob. 

1711. 

48 


30 

. 

. 


145 

tare to be marked. 

1715. 

48 

. 

32 

. 

37 


201 

not to repeal prec’dg. 

1747. 

48 


. 



70 

204 

nett wt. in hhd. 9501b 

182S. 

50 





76 

250. 



In 1829, a new subject for the operation of 
Weights and Measures was introduced by an Act, 
local in its title but, I presume, applicable to the 
whole State in effect, to provide for the In- jg29 
spection of Shingles at Port Deposit. By 
this a “ bunch of shingles 3 feet 4 inches between the 
bands, with 50 courses upon each side, and closely 
packed, shall be considered to contain 1000 shingles; 
and bunches, whose dimensions and contents shall 
not be equal thereto, shall be estimated and marked 
accordingly, that is to say f, f or 5, as the same 

may contain. 55 




36 


THE JUST HUNDRED AND THE SHORT TON. 


In the same year, was made a special Act to pro¬ 
vide for the counting of Staves and Heading in this 
State; by which the count was to be by the just, or 
as the Act calls it, the short hundred; “so that 1000 
pieces shall be computed as m. staves or headings:— 
and any inspector or dealer—attempting to count— 
at the rate of 1200 to the m., or at any greater rate, 
shall upon conviction be fined not exceeding 100 
dollars.” The method contemplated by this law is 
undoubtedly a correct one, but hereafter in this 
Report, we shall recognize for the long hundred 
here interdicted, an antiquity far out-dating the dis¬ 
covery of this Continent. 

The same principle of just count was affirmed in 
another Act of this same year, supplemental to a for¬ 
mer one (of 1818, not hitherto quoted because it has 
no connection with Weights and Measures) respecting 
Hay and Straw brought for sale to the City of Balti¬ 
more; by which the weighers are directed “ to make 
out their certificates for every 100 lb. weight, instead 
of 1121b. as they now do; and every 2,0001b. nett 
weight shall be considered a ton, and so in propor¬ 
tion.” The method to be applied to these articles, 
seems to have been a topic of more than usual inter¬ 
est, or more than usual difficulty; for this enactment 
has been repeated almost literally four times since: 
once, in 1832, applying to the whole State; then, in 
1836, upon the proposed erection of City-scales: 
again, in 1837, upon their conversion to State-scales; 


STANDARDS IN HARFORD COUNTY. 


37 


and then, in 1839, supplemental to the establishment 
of State-scales in the City of Baltimore. 

And the same principle was carried out, jggj 
two years afterwards, and applied generally 
to all articles, by the law to regulate the weight of 
Quercitron , etc.; by which it was enacted, that there¬ 
after with “ all Quercitron and all other ground bark, 
sumach, and all other articles sold by weight in this 
State, 100 lb. shall be taken and considered as one 
Cwt.; and that 20 hundred be considered and taken 
for one Ton, and so in proportion—any law to the 
contrary notwithstanding. 55 This act, as published, 
is more noticeable for its brevity than for its concision 
or literary accuracy. 

An Act of the same year ,/or the Inspection of Sole 
Leather in Baltimore, would not be referred to here; 
except for the provision in it, that the Inspector cc pro¬ 
vide himself with such and so many scales, weights, 
and stamps, as may be required. 55 It comes therefore 
within the purview of Weights and Measures. 

In the same year, a supplement to the Act of 1825 
for regulating Weights and Measures , transferred the 
standards of Harford County to the office of the Com¬ 
missioners of said County; and the Clerk of the Com¬ 
missioners, or some one else to be appointed by them, 
was constituted keeper of the standards. The Act 
farther allows, what the original Act did not do in 
terms, as I before observed—a specific compensation 
for each comparison made. 


33 


LOOSE ESTIMATE OF THE BUSHEL FOR LIME. 


1832 In the following year, by a second sup- 
plement, a like change was made in regard 
to the standards for Allegany County; and a peculiar 
clause was introduced by which the standard-keeper, 
appointed by the Commissioners for said County, is 
to perform all the duties that are required by the 
original Act, <c or so much thereof as the said Com¬ 
missioners may, in their discretion, deem necessary.” 
The fee for comparisons with the standard, is made 
the same as for Harford County: the compensation to 
the keeper, is to be such as the said Commissioners 
u may think fit and reasonable.” 

In this same year, the appointment of two persons 
as Lime-inspectors for the City of Baltimore, was 
vested in the Mayor and City Councils of said city; 
(this power was afterwards, by an Act of 1835, revoked 
and given to the Governor and Council) and it is 
made the duty of the persons so appointed to measure 
u all lime brought to the City of Baltimore, or to be 
used therein—by the standard bushel or Baltimore 
seal, in which is contained 2150 cubic inches.” 

A kindred article, Gypsum or Plaster of Paris, was 
likewise in the same year, by another Act, brought 
under inspection in the same city: but the duty of the 
Inspector is confined to the weighing of all such 
plaster, as shall be offered for sale in barrels; “ which 
barrels shall be of the size of the common flour 
barrel — and shall not contain less than 3201b. nett 
weight.” 


PLASTER OF PARIS BY WEIGHT. 


39 


But in the following year, a supplement 
to this last Act took off the obligation to 
offer Plaster of Paris in casks of any definite size; the 
Inspector’s fee is however still rated, in accordance 
with so much of the original Act, by every 320 lb. 
nett. I may remark in passing, that lump or stone 
plaster is exempt from any penalty in being offered 
for sale uninspected. 

But in this same year, a local Act, applying to the 
same article in the Town of Bladensburg, repeats, as 
far as Weights and Measures are concerned, the terms 
of the original Act for Baltimore. 

At the session of 1834, a third supple- 
ment to the A ct of 1825, regulating Weights 
and Measures , applied to Anne Arundel County in 
terms what had been, by the first supplement, enacted 
in regard to Harford County. I believe that, in point 
of fact, no substantial change was contemplated by 
either of these supplements: they were only to satisfy 
a formal necessity. The original Act expressly made 
the Levy Courts of the several Counties, the deposi¬ 
tories of the standards: now, these three Counties at 
least (I do not know if any, or how many, others) 
had no Levy Court by name—the functions of that 
Institution having been transferred to a body termed 
the Commissioners of the County. I presume it was 
only to remedy the apparent non-conformity, in the 
Counties mentioned, to the Act of 4825, that the 
supplements were desirable. 


40 


THE TON FOR COALS. 


2 gg 0 In 1836, although hitherto the material 
of which any measure, and especially a 
measure of length, should be made, had not been the 
subject of legal prescription, a local Act for the Town 
of Williamsport seems to have been considered re¬ 
quisite ; by which “ the Inspector of Lumber shall 
be permitted to measure all lumber with a tape-line, 
having thereon legibly marked its length, in feet and 
inches.” This Act comprehends various other pro¬ 
visions : it is to be presumed that the one I have indi¬ 
cated, was not the inducing aim of its enactment. 

Another Act of this year, respecting Hay and Straw, 
I have already alluded to, as requiring the computation 
of 2,000 lb. to the ton; but I did not mention that 
the weighing-apparatus was required to be inspected 
and adjusted, at least once in six months. 

This adoption of the short Ton, which, by the Quer¬ 
citron-act formerly mentioned, had been in terms ap¬ 
plied to all articles sold by weight, was modified by 
another Act of the same session (1836) in regard to 
the Inspection of Anthracite and bituminous Coal . 
By this Act, all anthracite was to be sold by the ton; 
“ and 2240 lb. of any Coal shall be allowed to the 
ton.” Bituminous Coal was to be measured cc in 
measures—to contain the quantity of 3 bushels of bi¬ 
tuminous Coal.” The phraseology of this Act was 
not remarkably distinct; but the substance of it, (it 
authorized the Executive appointment of two officers, 
by whom all anthracite sold must be inspected and 


EXCEPTION AS TO FOREIGN COALS. 


41 


weighed; and all bituminous coal sold in parcels larger 
than 3 bushels must be measured; and thus in fact 
it increased the price to the consumer by 12^ cents per 
ton, and a half-cent per bushel, respectively) it is pre¬ 
sumed, chiefly led to its repeal, which took place at 
the next session of 1837. The Act repeal- 
ing it, takes away all inspection except as 
to the weights and measures employed; the former of 
which must be proved at least twice a year: in case 
of difference between buyer and seller, the standard- 
keeper in each City and County respectively, is to be 
the umpire. The long ton of 22401b. is retained for 
anthracite; “but all bituminous Coal, hereafter sold in 
the State of Maryland, shall be sold by measure— 
proved and stamped by the proper officers of the City, 
or County, where the same is to be used; except 
foreign Coal subject to duty, in which case the measure 
of the General Government will be used.” The Act 
does not, in this place, state what denomination of 
measure shall be used; but as, in a subsequent section, 
the fee of the standard-keeper who may be called in 
between buyer and seller, is rated by the bushel, no 
doubt such was the unit contemplated by the law. 
The exception with regard to foreign coal is at least 
unnecessary; for it is to be presumed that an authen¬ 
ticated measure of the General Government would, 
in any case of difference, take legal rank above any 
copy of a City or County Standard, or even above 
such very standards themselves. 

7 


42 


ASSIZE FOR STAVES. 


1837. 

1839. 

1841. 


The Acts of 1837 and 1839, in regard 
to the Ton for Hay and Straw , have been 
already mentioned. 

In 1841, an Act, for the first time, regu¬ 
lated the Inspection of Red-oak Staves and 
Headings in this State; by which ce every sound stave 
28 inches long, 3 inches wide, I of an inch thick on 
the heart, and clear of a bad knot, shall be—counted 
as a prime stave; and every sound heading, 18 inches 
long, 5 inches wide, and j of an inch thick on the 
heart, and clear of a bad knot, shall be—counted as 
a prime heading.’’ All other staves and heading, 
not coming up to this standard, are to be thrown by, 
as cullings. In the next year, a supplement to this, 
applied its terms to White-oak staves and heading. 


1842. 


I should not mention a local Act of this 


session, though substantially universal in its 
application,— to regulate the Inspection of Lumber for 
the City and County of Baltimore ,—were it not for an 
amendment which it introduces into the terms of the 
old law of 1811. That law applied the rule of board- 
measure to all Lumber, except “ boards under § of 
an inch thick, which shall be measured on the sur¬ 
face:” this Act makes the exception for cc boards of 
an inch and under,” which are to be by superficial 
measurement. 

A resolution of the same session, is as follows: 

“ Resolved by the General Assembly of Mary¬ 
land, that the Governor be and he is hereby autho- 


UNITED STATES’ STANDARDS. 


43 


rized and directed to distribute to the Levy Courts 
or Commissioners, as the case may be, of the several 
Counties of this State, each, one Standard of the se¬ 
veral kinds of Weights and Measures which shall be 
received by this State from the United States.” It is 
in accordance with this resolution, that the Standards 
of the present Establishment are being constructed. 

Such are the principal Acts, making up the legisla¬ 
tion of Maryland upon the subject of Weights and 
Measures; and I shall farther, in this regard, only 
present in one view a reference to all the Acts con¬ 
nected with the matter, which a tolerably careful 
examination, much more minute than the indexes 
accompanying the Statutes, has brought to my no¬ 
tice. In order that such a view may be of the great¬ 
est practical use and (as may happen) of aid in some 
other research, I have classified the Acts according to 
the different kinds and employments of measures, 
which they contemplate respectively. The order of 
sequence within that classification, is chronological. 

I have not thought it necessary to make any dis¬ 
tinction between Acts existing and those repealed or 
expired. In the historical aspect, where lay the chief 
interest for my purpose, and in which I have regard¬ 
ed them, the repeal is of equal importance with the 
passage of a law,—both being indications of the 
state of society or the condition of commerce, that 
moved or justified them; while to have made the 


44 


GROWTH OF INSPECTION-SYSTEMS. 


ascertainment accurately and throughout, would have 
imposed upon me a labor, tedious in performance 
arid, when performed, without the sanction that a 
professional character in the Investigator alone could 
stamp. Nor have I made any distinction between 
general and local Acts; as e. g. regulations expressly 
for the City of Baltimore, Frederick, Williamsport, 
etc.: because such local acts were applied at the 
moment when there was supposed to be occasion for 
them, but they all either led to, or were, the devel- 
opement of a general principle. Hence it is fre¬ 
quently to be found, that a particular application of 
Weights and Measures to Inspections of various 
kinds, (and it may be even be said, whether that in¬ 
spection regarded quantity or quality, so that the 
phrase might have been, that a particular system of 
Inspection) has been made first at one point, as, for 
instance, Baltimore City; and then, when the com¬ 
merce in the same article required it to be inspected 
at some other place, as, for instance, Frederick, the 
application was made by a law, saying, that the In¬ 
spector at such other place should be governed by the 
same rules as laid down for similar officers in Balti¬ 
more. Cases of this kind, I have not thought it ne¬ 
cessary to note; but I have inserted all such laws as, 
first applied in any Town or County, have been after¬ 
wards extended in terms to the State at large , in order 
to mark the epoch of the practice; that of the princi¬ 
ple, occurs at the passage of the very first law. 


CLASSIFICATION OF ACTS. 


45 


Classification and Dates of Laws of Maryland 
concerning Weights and Measures. 

1°. Units of Weight and Measure. 

1638, ch. xxxiv. 1641, ch. ii. 1654, ch. xxiv. 
1671, ch. viii. 1678, ch. xv. xvi. 

1681, ch. xi. 1682, ch. xii. 1684, ch. vi. 
1688, ch. ii. 1692, ch. xliii. 1700, ch. viii. 
1704, ch. lxxi. 1715, ch. x. xlix. 

1719, ch. xvi. 1765, ch. i. 1796, ch. lxviii. 
1805, ch. cviii. 1809, res. No. 4. 

1825, ch. ccvi. 1831, ch. cliv. 1832, ch. ci. 
1834, ch. clxxviii. 1842, res. No. 54. 

2°. Measures of Length. 

Long Measure. 

1638 ch. xxxiv. 1671 ch. viii. 


Staves and Heading: 1658, ch. ii. 

and sequence under No. 5. 

1745, ch. xv. 

do. 

do. No. 4. 

1771, ch. xx. 

do. 

do. No. 5. 

1781, ch. xii. 

do. 

Nos. 4 and 5. 

1786, ch. xvii. 

do. 

do. No. 3. 

1817, ch. cxiv. 

do. 

do. No. 4. 

1829, ch. cli. 


1841, ch. cxc. 

1842, ch. cxxvi. 




Laths: . . . 1811, ch. lxx. 


Superficial Measure. 

Lumber: . . 1811, ch. lxx. 1817, ch. cxli. 

1828, ch. cxxxi. 1836, ch. ccxxii. 

1842, ch. cclviii. 

Land Measure. 

Not provided for otherwise than indirectly by 
1671, ch. viii. 

Solid Measure. 

Fire-wood : . 1816, ch. cxcix. 

Shingles: . . 1829, ch. cxlix. 

Tan-bark : . . 1833, ch. cxxxiv. 


46 


CLASSIFICATION CONTINUED. 


3°. Measures of Weight. 

Mint and Bullion: 1661, ch. iv. 1662, ch. viii. 1663, ch. xxxiv. 
1669, ch. x. 1676, ch. ii. 

Coins : . . . 1686, ch. iv. 1688, ch. ii. 1692, ch. xliv. 

1694, ch. xvii. 1699, ch. xlvi. 1700, ch. viii. 
1708, ch. iv. 1729, ch. ii. xv. 1781, ch. xvi. 
]783, ch. xxx. 1784, ch. xxxiii. lxxxiv. 
1786, ch. xxxv. 1789, ch. liv. 

1796, ch. lxiv. 1798, ch. lxxi. 1805, ch. cix. 
1812, ch. cxxxv. 

Tobacco and Tobacco Hogsheads : . . . 1692, ch. lxxxii. 

1747, ch. i. and sequence under No. 5. 
1838, ch. lxiv. 

Salted Provisions: 1745, ch. xv. and sequence under No. 4. 
1786, ch. xvii. 

Hay and Straw: 1771, ch. xx. and sequence under No. 5. 

1818, ch. cxxv. 1829, ch. clxiv. 

1832, ch. cxx. 1836, ch. ccxxxviii. 

1837, ch. cccxix. 1839, ch. lvii. 

Flour: . . . 1781, ch. xii. and sequence under No. 5. 

1825, ch. clxxiv. 

Fish: 1786, ch. xvii. 1817, ch. cxiv. 

Ground Bark : 1821, ch. lxxvii. 1831, ch. ccxxxix. 

Leather: . . 1831, ch. ciii. 1837, ch. xci. 

Plaster of Paris: 1832, ch. cclxxxii. 1833, ch. xx. cclxxv. 
Anthracite: . 1836, ch. cclxv. 1837, ch. cccxvi. 

Live Stock: . 1837, ch. cccxiii. 

4°. Measures of Liquid Capacity. 

1671, ch. viii. 

Barrels for brine, pitch, tar, turpentine, &c.: 1745, ch. xv. 

1750, ch. x. 1753, ch. iii. 1757, ch. vi. 
1760, ch. xi. 1763, ch. xii. 1766, ch. iv. 
1773, ch. xv. 1781, ch. xxix. 

1788, ch. xviii. 1795, ch. lxxxiii. 

1798, ch. lxxi. 1805, ch. cix. 

Liquor Casks: 1774, ch. xxiii. 1777, ch. xvii. 

1784, ch. lxxxiii. 1785, ch. lxxvii. 

1792, ch. lxxvii. 1796, ch. lxviii. 

1827, ch. clxxxi. 

. 1817, ch. cxiv. clxx. 1818, ch. xcix. 


Fish Barrels: 


CLASSIFICATION CONTINUED. 


47 


5°. Measures of Dry Capacity. 

Grain: . . . 1638, ch. xxxiv. 1641, ch. ii. 1671, ch. viii. 

1765, ch. i. 

Tobacco Hogsheads : . . . 1658, ch. ii. 1663, ch. xxxiv. 

1676, ch. ii. ix. 1692, ch. lxxxii. 1694, ch. v. 
1700, ch. iv. viii. 1704, ch. liii. 1711, ch. v. 
1715, ch. xxxviii. 1716, ch. viii. 

1717, ch. vii. 1720, ch. ix. 1721, ch. iii. 
1723, ch. ii. 1726, ch. iv. 1729, ch. v. 
1730, ch. vii. 1732, ch. xxv. 1736, ch. ix. 
1740, ch. x. 1744, ch. vii. 1747, ch. i. xxvi. 
1753, ch. xxii. 1763, ch. xviii. 1765, ch. xxix. 

1766, ch. i. xix. 1769, ch. vii. 1770, ch. i. 
1789, xxvi. 1801, ch. lxiii. 1828, ch. clxiv. 

Flour Barrels: 1771, ch. xx. 1778, ch. xv. 1780, ch. xxxvi. 

1781, ch. xii. 1787, ch. xxxviii. 

1795, ch. lxxxiii. 1796, ch. lxviii. 

1797, ch. cxvi. 1798, ch. x. 1801, ch. cii. 
1803, ch. lxxxiii. 

Lime: . . . 1832, ch. cclxix. 

Bituminous Coal: 1836, ch. cclxv. 1837, ch. cccxvi. 

With these particulars, I shall conclude here the 
first Part of this Report. 



PART II. 

OF THE AUTHENTICITY, VALUES AND RELATIONS OF THE 
SEVERAL UNITS OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM. 

The standards of the present Establishment come 
to us from the Treasury Department of the United 
States’ government; and it is therefore to some In¬ 
struction from the same source, that we should look 
for a full elucidation of the points which form the 
caption above. But in the absence of such a docu¬ 
ment, and especially as nominally these standards 
have been accepted here in Maryland by all our legis¬ 
lation, provincial and sovereign, a long time anterior 
to their existence under the present mode, it is ne¬ 
cessary now, in order to illustrate what has been 
exposed in the preceding section and thus to shew 
what the laws themselves actually had in view, that 
we should refer to the common originals of our old 
standards and our new. 

Both of these come from Great Britain; and the 
history of their variations in that country might be, 
for our present end, strictly limited between the 
epochs of their co-temporaneous introduction here,— 


ROMAN OCCUPANCY IN BRITAIN. 49 

that is, to a period of about 200 years. But as some 
of these variations, without notice of earlier organi¬ 
zations and disorganizations, would appear capricious 
or unaccountable, I shall be excused, I hope, in de¬ 
voting a few moments to the aim of rendering these 
more intelligible. 

For this purpose, I shall not ascend to those re¬ 
mote times when the footsteps of man begin to lose 
themselves in the forest of antiquity; I shall not en¬ 
quire into the primitive origin of all Weights and 
Measures, nor examine if the type of ours was cut 
in a Saracenic, Roman, Greek, or more oriental still, 
Egyptian font—all of which hypotheses have agi¬ 
tated the learned: I excused myself, in the outset, 
from such discussions. I shall trace the matter no 
farther, then, than to the first semi-civilized or (as it 
may be called, under another aspect,) classical occu¬ 
pation of Britain. 

Exactly nineteen hundred years ago, the Romans 
made their first entry upon that island. They carried 
with them at that moment, indeed, only the weapons 
of war; but a long provincialism, through nearly five 
centuries, nourished afterwards the arts of peace. 
The walls of Antonine and Severus, whose traces 
still remain, and whose name at least will be perpe¬ 
tuated as long as the northern English coal-mines last, 
attest with w’hat zeal protection was extended to citi¬ 
zens, some of whom had emigrated from Rome itself; 
and the number of Roman coins, dug up continually 
8 


50 


INFLUENCE OF THE ROMAN SYSTEM. 


at many of the old legionary stations, show the great 
degree to which, soon after the invasion, money and 
its dependent system of weights and measures had 
been introduced to, and accepted by, the Celtic abo¬ 
rigines. 

This acceptation was so generally expanded, as to 
have influenced the ratio of combination and, in a 
degree, the nomenclature of the English system of 
measures to this day. For instance, the Roman foot 
contained, according to the various remaining proofs 
of its length, from 11.604 to 11.846 English inches; 
and the Roman uncia or inch (of which, as with us, 
twelve made the foot) was thence 0.9670 to 0.9855 
of our inch. In the application of linear to itinerary 
measures, it is from them that we borrow the propor¬ 
tion of 5 feet to constitute a pace —the length of a 
double step, or from foot-print to foot-print on the 
same side; and as with them 8 stadia , so with us 8 
furlongs , make a mile. So in agrarian measures, the 
Roman actus , which lineally was (says Pliny) as far 
as ploughing “oxen are driven in one straight fur¬ 
row” and thus corresponds in terms with the English 
furlong (literally, one furrow-long) became, when 
squared, their unitary acre,—equal in content to 
nearly one and a quarter English roods. It is true 
that their jugerum , which we undertake to translate 
as acre , contained two such square actus; but the 
term implied a yoke of oxen, and the thing was as 
much as two oxen could, on an average, plough in a 


THE SCALE AND THE METRICAL POUNDS. 


51 


day: so that in fact, the actus’or rood may be regarded, 
as I have said, to be their true unitary acre—the equi¬ 
valent of the day’s labor of an ox. And just as their 
habitual acre was an oblong, one of whose sides was 
the length of a furrow, our acre at this day is an ob¬ 
long too, and one side a furlong. 

Farther, the Romans made the distinction between 
their nummulary and their commercial, or, in their 
own terms, the scale and the metrical pounds; and w r e 
have now a Troy and an Avoirdupois—our mint and 
our market weight. The index, if not the unit, of this 
system of weights and of capacity-measures connected 
with them, was in Italy the weight of the silver dena¬ 
rius at 84 to the pound; and the similar unit was in 
England, thirteen centuries later, the weight of the 
penny sterling, the part of the silver pound. It 
was upon the multiplication of the money weight, that 
the system of capacity-measures depended. The 
measurement and adjustment of volumes being exceed¬ 
ingly difficult, and the mechanical construction of a 
perfect cube or a perfect cylinder being, even now, 
next to impossible, the Romans (as the Greeks had 
found necessary to do before them), regulated the 
size of these measures by the equivalent weight of 
their contents in those articles—wine and wheat— 
which formed the staples of their trade. The Greek 
equivalents were oil and wheat. 

The unit of the Roman liquid capacity-measures, 
the congius , was understood by the Silian rescript or 


52 THE SO-CALLED WINE-MEASURE OF VESPASIAN. 

plebiscitum, two hundred years before the invasion 
of Britain, to be such a vessel as would contain 10 
nummulary or mint pounds of wine; and its size was 
recognized, not long afterwards, to be the eighth part 
of a cubic foot. It is from the weight of a remaining 
congius yet preserved at Rome, and undoubtedly of 
great antiquity (though hardly, as its inscription claims 
for it, a standard of the Emperor Vespasian, by whose 
name it is generally known) that the longest estimate 
of the Roman foot in English inches, which I gave 
just now, has been derived; upon the assumption, 
that the wine would be of the same specific gravity 
as distilled water, and upon the most recent determi¬ 
nations of the weight of the last-named liquid. Should 
we take, what is most proper, the weight of the wine 
to have been less than that of the water, and assign to 
it the mean specific gravity of the European lighter 
wines, equivalent to (say) 250 Troy grains per cubic 
inch, this congius of Vespasian, assumed to be per¬ 
fectly authentic and accurate, would accuse a length 
for the Roman foot of 11.885 English inches. 

On the other hand, the unit of the English liquid 
capacity-measures was likewise a vessel containing 8 
commercial or market pounds of wine , (although Eng¬ 
land never was a vine-growing country as Italy and 
Gaul were, and wine was an article of commerce only 
by import); and its actual size may be inferred, from 
other proofs, to have been at that time also the eighth 
part of a cubic foot. The difference in the recital of 


THE SILIAN LAW. 


53 


the weights in the two cases, 10 pounds in the one 
and 8 pounds in the other, in fact establishes the 
identity of their proportions (not dimensions) and the 
origin of the latter. The Roman congius was to con¬ 
tain 10 mint pounds of 12 ounces, or 120 ounces; the 
English gallon was to contain 8 market pounds of 15 
ounces, or 120 ounces too: the ounce being, in the 
respective nummulary and commercial accounts, the 
same with each. 

From these liquid measures, the transition was 
made proportionately, as it is with us, to the measure 
of things dry. But on this point, as the Roman wri¬ 
ters have not been perfectly explicit, and the English 
not entirely clear, I may be allowed to enter somewhat 
upon the details involving the question of the relative 
values of the commercial and the mint pound; whose 
distinction, had it been treated of in connection with 
weights proper, could not have been so well under¬ 
stood as now. This exposition will besides help, 
when I come to speak of the early English system. 

The Silian rescript before-mentioned, (it was in 
fact a proposition emanating from two tribunes of that 
family and accepted in a popular meeting, which sort 
of laws were termed plebiscita ,) after saying that the 
quadrantal should be of 80 pounds ( pondo ) of wine 
and the congius 10 pounds {pondo) of wine, goes on 
to say: that the quadrantal should be 48 sextarii; that 
the sextarius [of wine] should be equal with the sex- 
tarius of dry-measure (aequus cum aridorum sextario); 


54 


IDENTITY OF MONEY AND MINT-WEIGHT. 


and that the modius , which was the unit of dry mea¬ 
sures should be sixteen pounds ( libra .) 

The use of these two terms for weight, show that 
they did not both signify the same thing; and the 
etymology of the terms themselves, even without the 
collateral testimony by which it is supported, points 
to the proper application of each. The first ( pondo) 
means, originally and simply, weight; it was the me¬ 
tallic weight, which, from its permanence and porta¬ 
bility, would be very early employed, and especially 
in the case of counterpoising metal out of which money 
was to be made. It was therefore both the money 
weight and, in fact, money itself. But libra , which 
originally signified the implement used in counter¬ 
poising, (peculiarly, among the Romans, an apparatus 
like our steel-yard; and when the suspension was made 
in the middle of the bar, so as to require two dishes 
of equal weight, thence called specifically a balance , 
in Latin bilanx) when employed to denote a weight, 
signified the unit of weight employed for demotic 
and commercial purposes—the metrical weight, as 
Galen calls it; by which, account would be taken of 
the respective measures of equiponderant quantities 
of the two most important staples of their commerce.* 

In accordance with these inferences, the Silian law 

* It is true that at a later period, this name libra came to be applied to the 
money-pound of 12 oz.; the other, pondo , went into disuse ; and the word rrdna 
was employed to express the commercial pound: but as the object here is to 
expose the principles, not the details of the system, it will be proper to continue 
the nomenclature accepted in the law. This note will be sufficient to warn 
the classical reader against any mistake. 


PROPORTIONS OF MINT AND MARKET WEIGHTS. 55 

establishes for wine, one of those staples, the equiva¬ 
lent of a certain measure of it in money pounds; and 
for the other, wheat, a definite weight in market 
pounds. According to the mode of its translation, it 
helps us to determine the accepted proportions of 
these two pounds, respectively. 

The rescript says, in terms, that the sextarius (a 
measure very nearly our pint) of wine should be equal 
with the sextarius of dry things. Now this equality 
may be affirmed in either of three constructions: 
1°. the two objects may be identical in size; or 2°. 
they may be identical in weight; or 3°. they may be 
proportionately equal, in weight and size combined. 

The first of these constructions, is that which has 
most usually been understood by the English writers 
on this subject; it is that taken by Arbuthnot, for in¬ 
stance, the convenience and ingenuity of whose tables 
have procured for his estimates a currency, which the 
Dissertations, appended in editions after the first, 
would hardly have obtained. There are plausible 
reasons for its having been adopted; viz. 1°. the di¬ 
mensions of this fractional part of the unit are imma¬ 
terial to the system, inasmuch as the unit itself is de¬ 
termined by its weight; and whether the sextarius 
was absolutely large or small, the ultimate equation 
would be had, by making a smaller or larger number 
to constitute the unit: and 2°. its dimensions would 
be immaterial in practice, inasmuch as articles sold 
by the bushel, are rarely if ever reckoned by the 


56 DERIVATIONS OF THE MEASURE FOR WHEAT, 

quart, and still less likely to have been reckoned by 
the pint; which was about the actual size of the sex- 
tarius in question. Now we know from accidental 
authorities; not so old to be sure as the Silian law ; but 
not a great deal younger; that an equation as above 
mentioned was in fact obtained; for counted by mea¬ 
sure; the modiuS; which was to weigh 16 librae; con¬ 
tained 16 sextaries; a number that is not aliquot 
with any integral multiple of the sextaries in wine 
measure. To make it thus aliquot; it would have to 
be reduced in the proportion of 16 to 12; or of 4 to 3; 
which is not far from the relative specific gravities of 
wine and wheat in the growth of Italy. This ; there¬ 
fore; gives us the value of the libra, or wheat-pound; 
compared with the money-pound; as 16 to 12; and 
the ounces being taken as the same in both; while 
the money pound contained 12 ounces ; the commer¬ 
cial pound contained 16 ounces. This 16-ounce 
pound we know; from numerous testimonies; to 
have been current under the Roman republic; as it 
had been earlier in Attica ; and earlier still in Egypt: 
and a similarly divided weight is current with us to 
this day, under the name of the avoirdupois pound. 
Farther; 16 librae of 16 ounces each make up 256 
ounces; and 256.5 ounces are precisely the mean of 
the weights of a modius of Egyptian and Greek 
wheat; in the time of Pliny the Elder. 

The second possible construction is that the liquid 
and dry sextaries should be identical in weight. In 


ETRUSCAN AND LOMBARD WHEAT. 


57 


this regard, both the name of the thing and the re¬ 
script of the Silii imply that the liquid sextarius 
weighed the sixth part of 10 money pounds, i. e. 1§ 
pounds, equivalent to 20 ounces; and hence the dry 
sextarius, and its equiponderant the libra, must weigh 
20 ounces too. It may be remarked that this also is 
not far from a recognized wheat-weight: for the mo- 
dius, under this construction, would contain 320 
ounces; and the wheat of Clusium, in Etruria, is 
stated by Pliny in his time to give 312 ounces to the 
modius. Nor is this 20-ounce pound unmentioned 
by ancient authorities. One of them, Epiphanius 
of Salamis (who wrote in the fourth century of 
our era, but whose writings contain quotations of a 
much older date) expressly calls it mina Italica —the 
Italian pound. It is true that an older writer, the 
physician Dioscorides, bestows this name upon a 
pound which he says is of 18 ounces; and in so far 
agrees with the weight that Pliny gives for the 
wheat raised beyond the Po (Italia Transpadana) or 
in what is now called Venetian Lombardy. For he 
states such wheat (and, as I should infer from his 
phrase, at a maximum) to weigh, per modius, 25 
money pounds, equal to 300 ounces: now 16 pounds 
of 18 ounces would produce 288 ounces; and, if we 
suppose his statement to have been a maximum, and 
place the average at (say) 24 pounds, we would 
have exactly the 288 ounces for the modius. 

I should not have been so diffuse upon this point, 
9 


58 THE EIGHTEEN AND TWENTY OUNCE POUNDS. 

had it not been for the sake of illustrating how many 
technicalities and modes of account in commerce, 
arbitrary as they may at first sight appear, have 
grown out of the old distinction of wine and wheat 
weights, combined with the varying weight of wheat 
in the different countries where such modes of ac¬ 
count originated. For instance, in the old Roman 
times, the long hundred-weight was of 125 pounds— 
almost exactly in proportion to the nett hundred, as 
the specific gravity of wine is to that of wheat; and, 
taking the first commercial pound of 16 ounces as 
the unit of nett weight, in the proportion of the 
Italian pound just mentioned of 20 ounces. An old 
English long hundred-weight was of 108 lb. for 
wax, sugar, and some other commodities: but it is 
stated at the same time that the said pound was of 
25 shillings, while the pound for money and medicine 
was of 20 shillings. The ratio of these pounds is as 
12 ounces to 15 ounces, or very nearly as the 
weights, in Gascony, of wheat and wine; but the 
nett medicine hundred and the gross sugar hundred 
are in the proportion of 12 ounces to 16 ounces, and 
indicate therefore the introduction of the Roman 
avoirdupois pound. Finally, our present long hun¬ 
dred and long ton are in the ratio of 18 ounces to 
16 ounces, or that of the weight of Lombardy 
wheat to the ordinary commercial pound. 

• Some of the English writers on Weights and 
Money suppose the origin of these long hundreds to 


THE CUSTOMS-POUND. 


59 


have been in what may be termed the customs- 
pound; by which 12 \ or even 20 per cent, was al¬ 
lowed to the merchants for wear and loss: and which 
allowance, within those limits, might vary according 
to the more or less perishable nature of the com¬ 
modity and the wants of the sovereign or govern¬ 
ment, taking the customs. They paid duties, for 
instance, on the pound of 18 or 20 ounces, but sold 
by the pound of 16 ounces. This may very well 
have been the historical fact; but what I may term 
the geometrical fact, viz: the principle of calculating 
the proportionate allowance and the value in ounces 
of the respective pounds, seems to me to repose very 
plainly upon the grounds I have indicated. 

To return from this discussion. The third way of 
construing the Silian law, is to suppose that, between 
the two measures of capacity, the framers of it in¬ 
tended a proportionate equality in weight and mea¬ 
sure combined . And this seems to me the best 
founded. I do not deny that dissimilar practices, 
proceeding upon both of the other interpretations, 
and leading to the introduction of the various pounds 
which have been mentioned, may not have grown up 
even within two centuries from the enactment: but 
they originated in a misapprehension of the meaning 
of the law, just as we shall see presently from a sim¬ 
ilar misapprehension of a written law, accruing in a 
shorter time, arose the confusion which destroyed 
the old Saxon proportionate uniformity of standards. 


60 


PECULIARITY OP THE SILIAN PHRASE. 


This Silian rescript was no doubt the less lucid, 
because it aimed at being but the exposition of ex¬ 
isting usages, which tradition had made familiar and 
w T hich habit had sealed and would, it was expected, 
render permanent: but still its very phraseology leads 
to this last interpretation. The sentence in which 
the liquid and dry sextaries are mentioned in con¬ 
nection, is the only one where the words “equal 
with” are employed. Now equality is not identity. 
And if the statute had meant the two measures to be 
identical either in volume or in weight, it would have 
said that the liquid sextary should be the dry one, or 
vice versa; just as it says that the quadrantal of wine 
shall be eighty pounds, not shall be equal with eighty 
pounds, and again that the congius shall be (not 
equal with, but) six sextaries. 

This rule of interpretation corresponds with the 
genius of the languages, equally of the translation 
and of the original; and it is confirmed by considera¬ 
tions which belong exclusively to the syntax of the 
latter, and from which we are warranted, I think, in 
supplying the words for expressing the essential idea, 
to wit: that when a sextarius of wine was balanced 
with a sextarius of wheat, the arm of the balance 
should be level , which last word is the literal mean¬ 
ing of the Latin cequus. And this is what is meant 
in saying, that there should be a proportionate 
equality in weight and measure. 

Now a sextarius of wine weighed, as has been 


THE GREEK AND ROMAN METRICAL POUNDS. 


61 


already said, 20 ounces, allowance being made for 
the weight of the vessel; and a sextarius of wheat 
(struck) to weigh as much, and with the same tare, 
would have to be between one-third and one-fourth 
more capacious. But as wheat is not estimated in 
such small measures, it was not necessary in the law 
to refer to them any more than to indicate the prin¬ 
ciple of adjustment. It therefore ascended to a 
larger unit, substituting pounds for ounces in the 
computation; and, deriving that from an even mul¬ 
tiple of the congius, fixed its ultimate value by 
weight . Thus, two liquid congii with wine would 
weigh 20 mint pounds, and with wheat, 16 of the 
same pounds; this last number was taken up as the 
nominal unitary weight of the modius; and in order 
to retain for it the real weight of the congius also 
from which it had been derived, there was applied 
to it the metrical weight, or libra—computed to con¬ 
tain as many ounces (sixteen,) as had been found 
of wheat in the liquid sextarius. The ascent, there¬ 
fore, was made from the sextarius,—the transition 
from the congius; and the different pound-weight, 
which had thus become authenticated, was properly 
called the metrical pound, because it contained just 
the number of ounces that had been met with in the 
first step of the process. The Greeks, from whose 
language the phrase was originally borrowed, used it 
more appropriately in another connection. With 
them, it was a measure of a pound, not a weight; 


62 


FIFTEEN OUNCE POUND IN BRITAIN. 


just as our apothecaries now have their fluid-ounce, 
which is in a literal sense a metrical ounce. 

Had the contrivers of this system, neglecting the 
symmetry between the result with ounces and that 
with pounds, sought to establish an identity of pro¬ 
portion between the pounds themselves, the libra 
would of course have contained a smaller number of 
ounces, viz: fifteen; for the 20 mint pounds of wine 
contained 240 ounces, and 16 market pounds of 
wheat, at 15 ounces the pound, would contain 240 
ounces too: but both the variation in absolute 
weight was abundantly justified in experiments upon 
the different growths of wheat to be found in the 
Roman market, and also the commercial pound- 
weight, although it would have been a proportionate , 
would have ceased to be a metrical pound. 

It was possibly an overlooking of this which in¬ 
duced the Roman settlers in Britain, or the Saxons 
afterwards when they brought in a new pound, ac¬ 
tually to adopt this proportion for the ounces. And 
they would have been sustained in this misappre¬ 
hension, had they resorted to experiment: for the 
wheat of Gaul, with which the agricultural depres¬ 
sion consequent on a military occupation caused 
them to be principally supplied, weighed, according 
to Pliny, just 240 ounces (16 fifteen-ounce pounds,) 
the modius. This was the lightest wheat of which 
the Romans knew; and would shew a specific gra¬ 
vity little less than what is accepted at this day. 


INNOVATION UPON CAPACITY-MEASURES. 63 

It is very possible, too, that the fact of the Silian 
law, as we have seen since with some other laws, 
hastened the very contingency against which it was 
intended to provide. Attempting to ascertain and to 
tie down ideas to words, it did but increase the 
doubts; and gave rise to innovation, while the aim 
was only revival. Such an innovation we must con¬ 
sider to have occurred in the assignment, but a few 
centuries after, of the number of sextaries, (to wit, 
sixteen) the aggregate of whose capacities went to 
make up the modius. This was an application of the 
principle, which the Romans accepted as we do, that 
other things being equal, the volumes are inversely 
as the weights; but it was a misapplication of the 
facts in the particular case. It followed the metrical 
proportion in terms, on the one hand; but on the 
other, it introduced a mode of determination for dry 
capacity-measures, which the law had not recognized 
and which the framers of the law could not have 
adopted, unless they had believed all wheat, of what¬ 
ever growth, to be of the same specific weight. It 
recommended itself, however, to general application 
at first by its correspondence in terms, though not in 
fact, with the proportions it meant to indicate, and 
thus by its ease of remembrance; and it supported 
itself afterwards under question, by the result of ex¬ 
periments, within the variations that I have already 
mentioned. 

I shall conclude this disquisition, which I hope will 


64 


ROMAN AND ENGLISH UNITS. 


not be found too long for the interest of the subject, 
by presenting in one view the relations of the Roman 
weights and measures, as far as they admit of tolera¬ 
ble ascertainment, with those that appear some time 
after the Norman conquest to have been of legal 
acceptation in England. 


ENGLISH PROPORTION. 


Foot; 1 

Inch; I 

Pace; 1 

Mile; 1 

Rood; 1 

Pound (Tower); 1 

Ounce; 1 

Pound (Com’cial); 1 
Gallon (Wine); 1 

Gallon (Corn); 1 


ROMAN PROPORTION. 

0.9670 Pes; from the Cossutian monument. 

. Uncia; in both systems the 1-12 of the foot. 
Passus; in both systems, equal to 5 feet. 
0.9157 Milliare. 

1.2365 Actus; in both, multiples of a furlong. 
0.9714 Pondo; Libra of 12 oz. 

Uncia; in both, the 1-12 of the pound. 
1.0361 Mina; of 16 oz. 

0.9042 Congius; in both the 1-8 of the cubic foot. 
0.9620 do. ; the so-called stand’d of Yespasian. 
0.9684 Semi-modius. 


This table is sufficient to shew at a glance,—what 
was affirmed a little while ago,—the influence which 
the Roman system had upon the composition, and 
the denominations even, of the weights and measures 
accepted more than a thousand years afterwards in 
England. That it shows the introduction and per¬ 
manence of the Roman units too, I do not see any 
necessity for admitting; although such would be 
claimed by some writers wdio see in our present 
avoirdupois pound, for instance, but the restoration 
of the old Roman weight. 

Such acceptation of Roman units, seems to me to 
receive little countenance in the history of the Sax¬ 
ons, both prior to and at the time of their settlements 



IMMIGRATIONS OP TIIE SAXONS. 


65 


in Britain. Descended from those terrible Scythians 
and their most illustrious tribe, the Saca, —who, as 
far back as the time of Herodotus, had crossed from 
Asia over the Dardanelles or the Bosphorus or both, 
and expelling the Cimmerian clans, had settled them¬ 
selves in and around the Thracian Chersonese,—the 
“ People -of the Sword,” (as their name implies) 
were, at the time of the Roman invasion of Britain, 
spread north and west, along the course of the 
Danube and the waters of the Elbe; and occupied 
under a general name, then recently introduced but 
equivalent in signification to the original one, a great 
part of that portion of Europe which we now call 
Germany. Finding again in a new Chersonese, and 
driving from it, their ancestral Cimbric foes, they 
learned on the shores of the North Sea the art of 
ships; and even without that famous periplus of the 
Frank colony of Probus, w^hich served as a fresh 
stimulus to reap the harvest of the sea, four hundred 
years of successful piracy would have taught them 
all the approaches to Belgium, Gaul, and Britain. 

About the close of this last period, the Roman 
Empire,—now weakened by excessive extension, 
maintaining a more doubtful seat because of its al¬ 
ready double throne at Rome and at Constantinople, 
and threatened in both,—needed all the help that it 
had formerly spared for its remoter dependencies. 
Britain, depeopled even by the legionaries it had 
supplied, was abandoned by Honorius and the Ro~ 
10 


66 


SAXONS IN BRITAIN. 


mans at last and forever; and the Islanders ex¬ 
changed the comparative security of a colonial exist¬ 
ence for a precarious and troubled independence. 
Split up, perhaps at once, certainly before long, into 
many local governments, subject to the forays of the 
Gaelic and Celtic tribes who had evaded the Roman 
yoke and whom the unsentinelled wall of Severus 
now kept off no more, and menaced from time to 
time by these very Saxon sea-robbers, the head men 
of Britain proper, with plausible policy, employed 
one of these enemies against the other. How this 
employment was negotiated,—whether Hengist and 
Horsa were regularly invited over, or cognizant of 
the state of affairs preconcerted themselves to come, 
or accidentally at hand were availed of by the ambi¬ 
tion or timidity of Gwrtheyrn (the poetic Vortigern)— 
is for our view of no account: the first Saxons came 
with the prospect before them of a permanent settle¬ 
ment, the additions to their number were frequent, 
regular and large, and it is probable therefore that 
along with their language and habits, their maces and 
swords, they brought their weights and measures. 

This point, however, is neither worthy of being 
treated here with much diffuseness nor susceptible of 
any definite conclusion. Within the eight centuries 
that elapse, from the period I have just mentioned, 
to the time when we meet with a systematic estab¬ 
lishment of this matter, the dissevered principali¬ 
ties,—usually included under the generic appellation 


CONSTITUTIONS OF THE CONCIUEROR. 


67 


of Saxon, though not strictly so,—were disturbed by 
Danish invasions and settlements; and all were ulti¬ 
mately absorbed under a Norman conqueror and his 
companions. The estimation of the influence pro¬ 
per to be ascribed to each of these events and its 
consequences in the modification of Weights and 
Measures, demands a scope far more extended than 
the compass of this Report. 

It is true, the constitutions of the Conqueror ex¬ 
pressly declare that no alteration shall be made, in 
this respect, from the establishment of bus predeces¬ 
sors. But that establishment is hardly to be spoken 
of in the singular number, since his very laws also 
shew a want of uniformity between the West Saxon 
and Mercian computations; and we know besides 
that it was himself who abetted in England the then 
habitual continental computation of shillings and 
pence, assigning for both relative values quite differ¬ 
ent from what had been recognized under any of the 
Saxon customs. It is proper to add, however, that 
this innovation extended no farther than to the coins; 
and that the weights and other measures, for all that 
appears, remained or at least were intended to re¬ 
main, regulated by the Saxon standards. 

To confine myself, therefore, within a due brevity, 
I shall treat these standards and their methods of 
combination under the general aspect of English 
weights and measures; without distinguishing other¬ 
wise than incidentally between what were actually of 


63 


ORIGIN OF THE YARD. 


Saxon, Danish, or Norman origin and habit: and as 
this relieves from the diffuseness belonging to any 
chronological order of exposition, I shall condense 
every thing that is to be said down to the present 
time under classes of Measures, similar to those 
which have been made in the former part of this 
Report. 

1°. Measures of Length . 

The name of the unit in this measure—the yard — 
which has subsisted to this day, forbids the supposi¬ 
tion of a Roman origin. It means the girth; it was, 
most likely, the average circumference of the unclad 
chest of the stalwart Saxon race. In taking such a 
derivation, they were altogether peculiar: the rest of 
the continent of Europe measured lineally by the 
foot; the older Asiatic unit was similarly a linear 
measure, the cubit . Both of these last standards 
were in harmony with the pursuits of the people 
who employed them; the one with the pastoral re¬ 
pose of the East, the other with the agricultural 
activity and peaceful thrift of the West. But the 
warlike Scythians may be supposed to have adopted 
one, more connected with the violent muscular exer¬ 
tion for which they had daily call; they may have 
perpetuated it, in the length of their characteristic 
swords. It is difficult otherwise to reconcile the 
name with the thing; although the subdivisions of it, 
or its computed value, no doubt were early reconciled 


LEGEND OF BEAU-CLERC. 


69 


with the habitual measures of the nations whose ter¬ 
ritories they occupied. But this early reconcilement 
must have been made with the Greek foot, if we 
trust any thing upon the agreement of measures— 
not the Roman, from which the Saxon foot systemat¬ 
ically varied. It was, however, from the fractional 
computation of this last, as was given just now in the 
comparative table, by twelfth parts or uncice ,, that the 
English denomination and proportion of the inch was 
borrowed. We are warranted, then, in concluding 
that the Saxon yard, when it was generally accepted 
in Britain, coincided with 3 Greek feet; and it was 
divided after the Roman account which had been 
used in the Island for half a thousand years, into 36 
inches as at this day. 

Such a conclusion may be still admitted, even if 
we attach credit to the tradition that places the de¬ 
termination of this standard in the time of Henry I; 
that a prince so provident should have revised the 
measures of his kingdom is quite probable; that one, 
whose proficiency in knowledge more than common 
won for him the name of Beau-clerc , should have 
employed proper means and principles, is still more 
so. There is no physiological impossibility in the 
coincidence between the old Saxon yard and the 
length of the monarch’s arm, especially if in such 
arm’s length is included, as it was elsewhere, half 
the diameter of the body: but, historically, the fact 
altogether is more than doubtful. 


70 


THE IRON YARD OF EDWARD. 


More than a century later, a coincidence of another 
kind but in the same way, was noticed; and has come 
down to us in an existing law. The precise epoch 
of that law is uncertain; in some old editions of the 
Statutes it is referred to 33 Edward I, a. d. 1305; 
probably it expressed a much earlier tradition. It says 
“ that 3 barley corns, dry and round, make the inch 
12 inches the foot 

3 feet the yard 

5^ yards the perch 

and 40 perches in length and 4 in width the acre. 55 

It goes on to exhibit a table for Land-measure; 
and then, returning to linear measure, winds up by 
saying, “that the iron yard (ulna ferrea) of our lord 
the King contains 3 feet and no more; and the foot 
should contain 12 inches: that is, the inch be the 36th 
of the yard—and 5J yards ought to make the perch, 
that is 16 J feet, measured by the aforesaid iron yard 
of our lord the King.” It is hence plain that the 
barley-corns, as the inches, were merely indications 
not constituents of the standard; which is expressly 
the “iron yard aforesaid,” very likely dating up to 
the time of Henry Beauclerc. 

Precisely the same indication had been made long 
before in Wales. In the Venedotian Code (as it is 
called in the Ancient Institutions of Wales, one of 
the recent fruits of the Record-commission of Great 
Britain,) presumed to contain the laws of Howel 
Dda, the Welch Alfred, and to have been composed 


CYMRAEG LONG-MEASURES. 


71 


about a. d. 1080 ; — the measures for the mile are 
given; as follows: 3 barley corns in 1 inch 

3 inches in 1 palm-breadth 

3 palm-breadths in 1 foot 

3 feet in 1 pace 

3 paces in 1 leap 

3 leaps in 1 land 

1000 lands in 1 mile.’ 5 

The uniform triplicity in this system; up to the 
land; reminds the student in the Cymraeg archaeology 
of the triads; by which the Welch bards associated 
in their songS; ideas having or supposed to have (for 
the connection is often highly fanciful;) some resem¬ 
blance or affinity. One of the Codes, even, in the 
work I have mentioned, is made up of such triad 
proverbs. No doubt its exemplification, wherever it 
occurs, had some common origin. 

Thirty years before the date of the English statute 
just now given, the principality of South Britain had 
been annexed to the crown of England; and Edward 
of Caernarvon first wore the title of Prince of Wales. 
The law, therefore, applied in that district; where, 
either aboriginally or from Saxon proximity, there 
was an habitual measure used in fact as the unit of 
land-measure, which accorded with the English stan¬ 
dard. This appears from another passage in the 
code of Howel the Good, relating to the erw , or 
acre. After carrying on the same multiples from the 
barley-corns to the foot, this passage recites, that 



72 SAXON YARD EQUIVALENT TO THE WELCH UNIT. 

“4 feet are in 1 short yoke.” Now 4 feet of 9 inches 
are 36 inches; just the length of the English yard. 
I shall not stop to shew how this short yoke may be 
averred to be in fact the unit of length; but recur¬ 
ing to what I first said, that the subdivisions of inches 
and barley-corns at least were but coincidences not 
constituents, I shall make but one more reference to 
these Welch laws in illustration. It is the part of 
the same Venedotian code, prescribing the capacity- 
measure in which a cow, affirmed by the buyer to 
have been imposed upon him as a milch-cow, is to 
be milked: after giving four dimensions of the vessel 
with great particularity in inches, it winds up by 
saying that “the inch is the breadth of the judge’s 
thumb.” 

I have rendered the original word {ulna) in the 
so-called statute of Edward I, unhesitatingly by our 
word yard: because they were both composed of 36 
inches. And I presume that the same thing is meant 
by the due ulne infra listas which, as defining the 
unitary breadth of all coloured cloths and russetts, 
occurs first in the Magna-charta of King John at 
Runnimede; and is regularly repeated, through the 
eight succeeding and still preserved Anglo-Norman 
Great-charters, down to the very period of which I 
am speaking. But this ulna —a yard—must not be 
confounded with another ulna —an ell—as is some¬ 
times done; nor the words, yard and ell, used as 
synonyms. The last, the ell, came in later; is sup- 


RELATION OF THE YARD AND ELL. 


73 


ported by a lately existing standard of Queen Eliza¬ 
beth’s reign, as being a yard and a quarter, or 45 
inches; and, in that proportionate length, may be 
presumed to have been borrowed from the Paris 
drapers’ ell. 

The very standard, referred to in this statute, is 
not now in existence; but there is good reason for 
presuming that its absolute dimension has been pre¬ 
served. A succeeding statute (14° Edward III; 
a. d. 1340,) directed that the treasurer should have 
made “ correct standards of brass for the bushel, the 
gallon and weights;” but nothing is said of a measure 
of length: nor is it until 1491 (7° Hen. VII) that 
there is any more mention of standards to be con¬ 
structed. As there was (previous to 1834) in the 
Exchequer of Great Britain, a yard measure of brass 
(the metal spoken of in the act) with the stamp of 
this Prince; and as in the recall by him, five years 
afterwards, of erroneous standards of capacity, no 
reference is made to the length measure, we may 
conclude that the late yard was the very one made 
under this act; that it was a copy of the iron mea¬ 
sure of his predecessor; and that, being taken as a 
full substitute, it led to the disregard and final loss of 
this last. 

The yard of Henry YII appears to have kept its 
place as the standard, till in its turn it was replaced 
by a yard and matrix in the reign of Q. Elizabeth 
(30° Eliz. a. d. 1588). This last, though succeed- 

11 


74 STANDARD FOR THE ROYAL SOCIETY. 

ing sovereigns caused others to be constructed and 
left in various other depositories, was, for a long time 
after, the sole Exchequer standard of length* 

It was not until 1743, that any thing like a critical 
examination and scientific determination of these 
various measures, was had* In June of that year, 
Mr. Graham made, at the instance of the Royal So¬ 
ciety, with the assistance of several other members 
and with a suitable apparatus, the necessary investi¬ 
gation. He compared the two standards I have 
mentioned at the Exchequer, and an ell (of 45 
inches) of Q. Elizabeth at the same place; a yard 
and ell matrices at Guildhall of Charles II and Wil¬ 
liam and Mary; a yard of the Clockmakers’ Com¬ 
pany of Charles II, and a yard, belonging to the 
Ordnance and kept at the Tower, of George I* The 
mean of all these six yards and matrices inches . 
(the ells being omitted) was . . 36.0058 

the yard of Q. Elizabeth being taken as 36.0000 
and the old yard of Henry VII, found to be 35.9929 
He made also a copy of the Q. Elizabeth standard 
for the use of the Society; destined to perform, some 
time later, a more important function. 

In 1758, the House of Commons raised a com¬ 
mittee, “to inquire into the original standards of 
weight and measure in this kingdom, and to con¬ 
sider the laws relative thereto.” This committee 
made a first report in the same year, touching the 
standards; and a second in 1759, touching the sta- 


bird’s parliamentary standards. 75 

tutes: to both of which I shall have occasion to 
refer again. As far as the measure of length is con¬ 
cerned, the committee found the exchequer standards 
in what they considered an unsatisfactory condition; 
and they preferred to derive the unit they wished to 
present to Parliament from Graham’s copy for the 
Royal Society, which was regarded as having been 
better preserved. Accordingly they engaged Mr. 
Bird, the most eminent mathematical artist of his 
time, to make two standard yards from this copy; 
and they reported one of them with which they 
were best satisfied, marked with the date 1758, to be 
accepted as the unit of length. The other, of which 
they make no particular mention, I consider as being 
the one subsequently found by Sir George Shuck- 
burgh to be dated 1760. This was attributed by him 
to another committee raised, as he supposed, in that 
year: but I have met with no other evidence of such 
a proceeding, and I take the date to have been af¬ 
fixed upon some later examination by the same com¬ 
mittee. This is however of very little importance. 
Both of them, whenever made, were undoubtedly 
executed by Bird; upon whose skill the committee 
appear to have unhesitatingly relied. In this parti¬ 
cular case, there was indeed the more reason; a 
trusted workman in the shop of Sisson, where the 
Royal Society yard was got up for Graham, he had 
most likely done the mechanical part of that and so 
came to be familiar with all the standards. When 


76 


EPOCH OF INVARIABLE UNITS. 


he attained afterwards a reputation on his own ac¬ 
count, he made divers scales of yards and multiples 
of yards; which were deservedly in high respect 
and tended ultimately to modify the standards. 

In 1760, bills in conformity with the recommenda¬ 
tions of the committee were brought in by the chair¬ 
man, read twice, amended, and in preparation for 
being passed by the House; by which among other 
things, one of these copies by Bird would have been 
accepted as the standard yard: but a prorogation 
occurred before the bills were entirely ready, and so 
the matter was lost for that time. As I have always 
found this occurrence placed in the formal histories 
of the period under the date I have given, I presume 
that the one of 1765, attributed to it by a parliamen¬ 
tary report of a Weight and Measure committee in 
1816, is either a misprint or an accidental error. At 
either period, however, there were subjects, if not 
more important at least more exciting, to occupy the 
legislature; just as there were again in 1790, when a 
fresh committee was appointed to consider the stan¬ 
dards, whose investigation (if they made any) left 
no remaining trace. 

About the year 1774, the idea of an invariable 
and universal unit of linear measure began to de- 
velope itself in England, as it did in fact elsewhere; 
the pages of the scientific journals of that period, as 
well as of more elaborate authorship, abound with 
inquiries into the origin and proportions of Weights 


PRIZE FOR AN UNIVERSAL LINEAR STANDARD. 77 

and Measures, and with suggestions as to a uniform¬ 
ity which the growth of physical science was every 
day rendering of more interest. In England espe¬ 
cially, the early ideas of Wren and Huygens, in re¬ 
gard to the employment of the pendulum as the 
measure of length, were being revived; and in the 
year I have mentioned and for several following 
years, the Society for encouragement of Arts, etc. 
offered a prize to the successful investigator of this 
or any other method. But the time was not yet ripe 
for the developement; and the call of the Society was 
only a demonstration of failure. Some time later in 
France, indeed, when the phenomena of the pendu¬ 
lum were taken up as collaterals to the metrical sys¬ 
tem there, Borda shewed how, through a compli¬ 
cated analysis, the mechanical difficulties could be 
obviated: but the Saxon intellect, essentially syn¬ 
thetic, waited for a mechanical revelation or, in our 
phrase, a practical way. This—the convertibility of 
the centres of suspension and oscillation—was first 
suggested by Bohnenberger, more than thirty years, 
and was independently exemplified by Kater, more 
than forty years, after the time of which I speak. 

The prize-call of the Society, although abortive in 
its special aim, was however fruitful, indirectly, of 
momentous consequences to English weights and 
measures. Not to mention the ingenious experi¬ 
ments of Whitehurst, it stimulated Sir Geo. Shuck- 
burgh Evelyn to a revision of the comparisons of 


78 


SIR GEORGE SHUCKBURGH EVELYN. 


Graham and Bird. In 1798, this savant published 
his results. For making the comparisons, he had 
procured from Mr. Troughton—an artist, who in all 
respects filled the place of Bird, and more—a scale 
of inches, each the thirty-sixth part of the standard 
yard. Whence Troughton derived his values, is not 
positively known : most probably, by the coincidence 
and Troughton’s avowed high opinion of Bird’s accu¬ 
racy, from some scale of Bird’s make. The mean re¬ 
sult of seven measures in the Exchequer, in the Com¬ 
mons’ archives, in those of the Royal Society, and in 
the Tower, gave a value for the yard, within Timr of 
an inch of what had been assigned by Troughton’s 
scale; and the greatest difference among these and 
six others, most respectable copies, occurred between 
the old standard of Henry VII, (which, after all its 
long use, was only x U of an inch too short,) and the 
matrix of Guildhall (that use would tend to lengthen, 
and which was tU of an inch too long,) to the 
amount of one-tenth of an inch. incheSt 

Taking a mean on Troughton’s scale, of 36.000 
the yard of Henry VII was . . . 35.924 

and that of Q. Elizabeth .... 36.015 
If, then, we take the yard of Henry VII as the 
equivalent of the iron yard of Edward I, we are 
warranted in saying that, for all practical purposes, 
the scale of Troughton and that old standard are 
identical. 

I have insisted the more upon this Troughton 


WEIGHT AND MEASURE COMMISSION IN 1818. 79 

scale of Shuckburgh, because it has come subse¬ 
quently to be the real standard measure of length in 
the United Kingdom. In 1818, a Royal commis¬ 
sion was appointed, according to a resolve of Parlia¬ 
ment four years before, cc for considering how far 
it might be practicable and advisable to establish a 
more uniform system of Weights and Measures 
and one of its necessary functions was, of course, a 
revisal and comparison anew of the old standards. 
And such comparison was the more necessary, in 
order to see how far the adoption of certain ideas 
which the Commission favored in respect to the basis 
of the new system, would deviate from what had 
been recognized in the old. One of these ideas, for 
instance, was that the standard yard should be de¬ 
rived from the measurement for the Hounslow Heath 
base-line of the trigonometrical survey, that had 
been executed, some thirty-five years before, by Gen. 
Roy. The length of this base-line rested upon that 
of an iron bar of 20 feet (a traits) made by a very 
excellent artist, Ramsden, for the purpose, and ulti¬ 
mately upon a brass scale, the property of the same 
artist; and both were averred to agree precisely with 
the Graham Exchequer standard of the Royal So¬ 
ciety. The same agreement was averred also for a 
Bird scale, the property of Roy. The Ramsden 
brass scale could not be found; but the other three 
were accessible. These were all compared in 1820, 
by the late Capt. Kater, one of the Commission, an 


80 


rater’s comparisons. 


accurate and skilful observer; and along with them,— 
Bird’s parliamentary yard of 1760, which has been 
before mentioned,—another yard scale, a traits , of 
the same artist, constructed for the use of the An¬ 
glo-Indian survey under Col. Lambton,—and the 
Troughton scale of Shuckburgh. Shuckburgh had 
already said that the 1760 Bird yard differed from 
his scale within -nr!^ of an inch: the result of Ea¬ 
ter’s comparisons was, (taking the Lambton Bird 
scale, which was the shortest of all, as the zero) as 

follows: inches. 

Lambton’s Bird yard, . . . 36.000000 

Sir Geo. Shuckburgh’s standard, . 36.000642 

Bird’s Parliamentary yard of 1760, 36.000659 

Roy’s Bird scale, .... 36.001537 

Royal Society’s standard, . . 36.002007 

Trigon. survey’s Ramsden iron bar, 36.003147 
This result, of course, placed the standard of the 
trigonometrical survey out of the question; and the 
commissioners recommended, in a second report of 
1820, the adoption of Bird’s Parliamentary yard of 
1760 as the foundation of all legal Weights and 
Measures. Parliament, four years afterwards, ac¬ 
cepted the recommendation and declared the said 
yard, under the denomination of the Imperial Stan¬ 
dard Yard, to be the “unit or only standard measure 
of extension” of the United Kingdom; as it remains 
to this day. But as the difference, shewn in the 
above table, between this new Imperial standard and 


IMPORTANCE OF THE SHUCKBURGH SCALE. 81 

the Shuckburgh scale is so slight (only seventeen 
millionths of an inch,) and as, indeed, six of the 
twelve comparisons made by Kater between them, 
and two other comparisons made by Wollaston, the 
most reliable observer of his day, had resulted in 
absolutely no difference at all,—the two scales were 
justly taken at the time to be perfectly identical. In 
this view, fac-similes of the Shuckburgh scale, exe¬ 
cuted by the same artist at private instance,—have 
been extended to the continent of Europe and serve 
for the conversion of measures there into those of 
English estimation, and reciprocally; copies of the 
English yard and inches, compared by the same ob¬ 
server Kater, have been made by its means for com¬ 
munication to several of the European governments; 
and finally, it is from a Troughton fac-simile (except 
as regards the number of inches) of the same scale 
and apparatus that flow all the comparisons for and 
ultimate determinations of our present Standard 
Yard of the United States. 

I am, therefore, justified by all these momentous 
consequences, in ascribing to this scale of Shuck¬ 
burgh the importance that I gave it just now in 
calling it the real standard of Great Britain and, I 
might add, of the Anglo-Saxon family. The Com¬ 
mission, indeed, (or rather the working member of 
it, the late Captain Kater,) convey by the language 
of the scientific account of the new Standards of 
Great Britain and Ireland, committed to the pages of 
12 


82 CONNECTION OF THE PENDULUM AND YARD. 

the Transactions of the Royal Society, the idea that 
their weights and measures “are founded upon a 
standard, the length of which is determined by the 
proportion it bears to that of the pendulum vibrating 
seconds of mean time in London.” But such an 
idea must be only accepted in a peculiar and re¬ 
stricted sense. If by some all-whelming catastrophe, 
the now existing standards of the English yard and 
inches should be swept away, it is true that their 
value (excepting errors of observation) could be 
recovered from the measure of a pendulum beating 
seconds in London, or elsewhere, by an appropriate 
correction: but until then, the value of the yard will 
always be derived, by a much more patent and unex¬ 
ceptionable experiment, from the Shuckburgh scale 
or some sufficiently respectable copy of it. After a 
catastrophe, similar in kind but much less in degree 
than such a one as I have premised—I mean the con¬ 
flagration of the Houses of Parliament in 1834 and 
the destruction there of the Imperial standards—I 
have not heard of any resort to the pendulum to 
effect the restoration of the latter. 

If the phrase of the account of Capt. Kater had 
been, may be determined , instead of is determined, it 
would have been literally accurate; but as the case 
actually stood until 1834, the standard was not deter¬ 
mined by any reference to the pendulum: the length 
of the pendulum was determined by reference to the 
standard. In fact, speaking historically, the pendu- 


PRACTICAL LIMIT TO UNIVERSAL LINEAR STANDARDS. 83 

lum has nothing to do with the standard farther than 
a coincidence; and speaking popularly, no more than 
the barley-corns of Edward I, had to do with his 
iron yard. Speaking scientifically, these averments 
would of course have to be qualified: but even in 
this last aspect, the pendulum is no more an element 
of the English metrology than it is of the French, 
where indeed to its interposition is assigned the 
proper rank. The conduct in the latest establish¬ 
ment of each of these systems, serves to exemplify— 
I will not say the fallacy or the inutility, but—the 
inconsistency of those aspirations after an absolute 
and invariable standard, which animated the pursuit 
in both. The one, claiming to be determined by a 
phenomenon of Nature’s most universal law—gravi¬ 
tation—yet reposes, actually and in terms, upon the 
space between lines traced on a brass bar for Sir 
George Shuckburgh; which space was obtained by a 
series of (so to speak) material traditions from and 
compromises among ancient standards, of origin if 
not accidental at least not refined: The other, 
more ambitious still and aiming to girdle the globe 
both morally and physically, in practice had to mea¬ 
sure each successive step of its profound and wide- 
reaching investigations, by the space included be¬ 
tween certain lines on the so-called toise of Peru; 
which, on its side, grew out of successive traditions 
from the ancient measures of the kingdom. All this 
serves farther to shew the interest attaching to every 


84 


THE SAXON POUND. 


undertaking, like the present, to guard and perpe¬ 
tuate such traditions; and even if one should not be 
satisfied that standards so handed down, bear a sanc¬ 
tion of the highest order (in being symbols of intel¬ 
lectual and moral, instead of merely physical, mani¬ 
festation,) at least it is not to be doubted that the 
operations in fixing them are precisely the same, 
and therefore just as important, as those upon which 
an Establishment for the Universe, were such a thing 
possible, in its earliest stage must rest. 

2°. Measures of Weight. 

As in the Measure we have just now been consi¬ 
dering, the distinctive appellation given to the unit 
indicates a Saxon origin, so also does it in this case. 
The English pound and penny bore, in ages far re¬ 
mote from ours, the denomination of Sterling or 
Esterlin as they do now. That this indicates no 
Roman identity, at least, the writers on the subject 
are nearly unanimous; but the tracings of its etymo- 
logy, prior to 1745, have been as various almost and 
as numerous as the writers themselves. In that year 
Martin Folkes, then President of the Royal Society, 
an accomplished numismatologist, first announced in 
his Table of English Silver Coins (already referred 
to,) and upon the authority of a verdict relating to 
the coinage preserved in the Exchequer from the 
time of Henry VIII, the value of the Saxon pound 
in terms of Troy weight. The proportion between 


WHY CALLED STERLING. 


85 


them, as 15 to 16 or as 5400 grains to 5760 grains, 
excluded all reference to origin from the Romans, 
and shewed that, after their occupation ceased, a 
new unit must have been substituted. But this an¬ 
nouncement did not settle the derivation either of 
the name or of the thing; and authors have been as 
discrepant since as before. Among derivations so 
omnigenous as Estar , the Saracenic word for the 
Greek coin, the Stater— Star , the Hebrew word for 
an indenture or written obligation— Steore , the Saxon 
word meaning a standard —Stirling Castle in Scot¬ 
land—the speaking bird, the starling —who shall 
judge? The epithet Easterling , which to a weight 
coming from Heligoland, nearly due East from Bri¬ 
tain, would be quite appropriate, Bp. Hooper denies 
to it from that quarter, to place it more probably 
among the rich merchants on the South-east or 
Mediterranean Sea: though he rejects both, and 
prefers to find it among the Saracens. Others have 
discovered, as they suppose, that the mint-workmen 
came from Germany; and have even fixed the epoch 
of their advent in the reign of Richard Coeur de 
Lion. Only one writer, Clarke, has seized the ob¬ 
vious physical and historical analogies; and has pre¬ 
sumed it to be the old pound of the Asiatic conti¬ 
nent, whence the Saxons came. It was thus, from 
the moment they planted themselves on the Euro¬ 
pean shore, an Easterling pound; and each succes¬ 
sive step in their subsequent western migration only 
gave fresh reason for the name. 


86 


PAYMENT OF COIN IN TALE. 


It is impossible now to ascertain positively what 
the divisions of this pound were, for many centuries 
after its European use: but the subdivisions of it in 
account, no doubt very soon accorded with those 
habitual in the provinces under Roman domination. 
In the earlier times of Weights and Coins, the mint 
pound and the pound of account were identical; the 
silver coin was a corresponding nummulary weight; 
and the denarii, for instance, (the Roman mint units 
after the introduction of silver,) were reckoned at 84 
to the pound, because each such piece was, as near 
as the then imperfect art of coining could make it, 
sV of the pound weight of silver. But as the circu¬ 
lation of this money was extended, as experience 
detected and use magnified the deviations (which 
would be always on the side of light weight) in 
the mint, an allowance was made on money paid in 
tale to cover the defect in absolute weight. The 
kind of this allowance was the same with,—the de¬ 
gree of it not materially different from what had been 
before admitted in the exchange between articles 
sold by measure and those sold by weight; and the 
coinage itself was after a while regulated accord¬ 
ingly. Thus, to keep to the instance just mentioned, 
the pound of silver was intended to be cut up into 
84 pieces or denarii; it rarely produced that number 
exactly, first because it required a certain perfection 
in the workmanship, and secondly, because the State 
or the sovereign gained every additional piece that 


OLD ROMAN PENNY REDUCED ONE-HALF. 87 

could be coined over that number. But such a dis¬ 
count could not be made, systematically or for a 
long time, without detection; a corresponding pre¬ 
mium was demanded by those who received money; 
and the denarii appear to have been rated at 100 to 
the pound, before the Imperial necessities had ac¬ 
tually changed the coinage from 84 to 96 pieces out 
of the pound weight, that is, from 7 to 8 in the 
ounce. This computation was perhaps supported 
too by the Greek commerce; the Roman denarius 
and the later Greek drachm hardly differed in 
weight; and these last had always been by the 
centesimal count. 

At all events, in the earliest times of the Byzan¬ 
tine Empire the centenionales nummi , the silver cents, 
replaced the old denarii; the poverty, that like an 
armed man followed with irresistible tread the lux¬ 
ury of the successors of Constantine, rendered expe¬ 
dient an actual decrease in the size (keeping, how¬ 
ever, the old denomination) of the coin with which 
the military establishment of the throne was sup¬ 
ported ; and hence we may trace the use, among the 
Franks and other nations in Germany, of the cera- 
tium or quinarius of 200 to the pound, as their uni¬ 
tary silver coin under the name of denarius. It was, 
in weight, the half-denarius. 

Now, if the minting was accurate and 200 denarii 
(so called) were really struck out of the pound of 
silver, the same proportionate allowance as before, 


88 EPOCH OF 240 PENCE TO THE POUND. 

between weight and tale, would make them pass 
when counted at 238.5, or, in round numbers, at 240 
to the pound. This number of denarii or pence to 
the pound, was certainly admitted all over Europe 
not very long after the Saxon occupation of Britain: 
that it arose from a degradation in the mintage of 
one-fifth, seems to me deficient in historical proof; 
at least those, who advance such an opinion, have 
omitted to indicate the precise epoch at which the 
degradation averred took place. 

Whether the Anglo-Saxon count, of 240 pence in 
the pound, was borrowed from this Frankish count: 
or whether it originated long before in the propor¬ 
tions of the older Greek pound—from which, for 
instance, we have derived the weight of the journey , 
(as it is called,) of silver to be minted, viz: 60 lb. or 
the Talent ,—I shall not enquire. Both, probably, 
contributed to the result. 

With 240 pence to the pound, the universal subdi¬ 
vision of the pound into 12 ounces, makes 20 pence 
to the ounce; a proportion, affirmed in the first pre¬ 
cise English statute remaining on the subject. It is 
the same proportion that we have to this day. The 
division of these pennyweights into 24 grains was 
the old way of the Romans; who counted 24 lentes 
to a scriptulum or scruple, the smallest of their 
marked weights. There is no direct evidence of 
such a subdivision in the Saxon pound. 

It was in accordance with these proportions, that 


THE SAXON SHILLING. 


89 


the money-weight was regulated, though under dif¬ 
ferent denominations. The pound of silver was 
reckoned by coins, in shillings and pence; the same 
appellations used in England now, but conveying 
neither the same absolute nor relative values as then. 
The Saxon shilling or scyllinga was the Roman sici- 
licus; which, as a weight, was of the pound and, 
as a coin, corresponded to the value of the old dou¬ 
ble-denarius or didrachm. Whether the Saxons cor¬ 
rupted this name in Roman commerce either in Ger¬ 
many or Britain, or had it before from an Eastern 
source, I shall not stop to discuss; the vanity of the 
Latin authors would have one believe that it was in¬ 
digenous to their tongue. But the very etymology 
they give, strains and weakens the claim; it is hard 
to make the sound of sicilicus out of semiunciam se¬ 
cerns; and a more particular investigation than can 
be afforded here, would perhaps determine our find¬ 
ing the analogue of the term, as we do of the thing, 
in the Greek siclus and Jewish shekel. It has, how¬ 
ever, hitherto hardly less exercised the ingenuity of 
philologists than the epithet sterling. 

Be this as it may, there is evidence as far back as 
the Dano-Saxon laws of Edward and Guthrum, 
about a. d. 920, that the shilling was worth 5 pence; 
and therefore, with 240 pence to the pound, it was 
just tV of the latter. In tale , they might have been 
reckoned at 50 to the pound, just as we know was 
the case of the Greek drachm and Italian denarius; 

13 


90 


THE SHILLING OF ATHELSTAN. 


which serves to reconcile the arithmetic of some of 
these laws with the rest. That the shillings fell to 
60 in the pound afterwards, would appear from the 
laws of Athelstan, the successor of Edward the 
Elder, (about a. d. 924,) in one of which the levy 
of 4 pence is called the King’s shilling; and again, 
from a law of the Conqueror, which says that the 
English solt is 4 deniers. The number of deniers, 
or pence, in the pound having remained constant, 
there must have been in it, also, sixty pieces of 4 
deniers each. 

Such is the conclusion of some of the English 
writers: which is of no great concern here either to 
admit or disprove. I will only remark in regard to 
the law of Athelstan, whose necessities have been 
taken as a plausible reason for his lowering the value 
of the coin, that it is quite likely he should have 
done, as Governments laying a tax not unfrequently 
do still, viz: allow a premium for early payment. 
The law itself required from every one whose income 
was 30 pence, a shilling to be paid within twelve 
months; now, in estimating a proportionate tax, a 
shilling of 5 pence is an aliquot part of 30,—it is the 
sixth part, which was besides exactly the multiple 
employed in a good many other taxing and penal 
laws of the period. An income of 60 pence would 
yield two shillings, and so on. Farther, this propor¬ 
tion of 48 to 60, or of 4 to 5, is exactly the ratio of 
the mint-pound of 12 ounces and the Saxon com- 


THE SAXON PENNY. 


91 


mercial pound of 15 ounces; and Athelstan might be 
very well content, if he got his 4 pence, to let it be 
called a shilling (as it really was of the market 
pound,) and thus allow his subjects the consolation 
of thinking that the rate had been fixed upon the 
computation most advantageous to themselves. Fi¬ 
nally, the sway of Athelstan was over the whole of 
that Octarchy whose dissevered state had been fa¬ 
vorable to a want of uniformity in weights and mea¬ 
sures. Some of his subjects had been habituated to 
the computation by the money-pound, while others 
seem to have used only the proportions of the com¬ 
mercial weight; and between the West-Saxon reck¬ 
oning and that of Mercia the central and largest 
portion of his domain, there was centuries after pre¬ 
cisely the ratio of 25 to 20 in the fines for identical 
offences. He, therefore, whose prescription that 
“there be one money over all the King’s dominions” 
is the first of the kind we meet with in Saxon his¬ 
tory, may have evidenced his attempt to reconcile 
these different computations in the very law that 
rates the old five-penny shilling at four. 

To return from this, the pennies themselves appear 
to have remained for a long time constant. The 
Saxons called them pcenninga , or, as in some remain¬ 
ing records, pending; in this, certainly borrowing 
from the Latin pendo , inasmuch as this piece was the 
unit of their coins and accounts. It was the key of 
the whole English system of weights and capacity- 
measures, long after the Norman times. 


92 THE NORMAN SOLIDUS AND THE DANISH ORA. 

But these Norman times brought in with them, as 
I observed a little while ago, a great change in the 
relations which the shilling had to the penny; and 
the former, which fluctuated, as we have seen, ac¬ 
cording to locality and age, between five and four 
pennies, became under William the Conqueror and 
more uniformly and clearly still under Henry I, the 
solidus of twelve pence. This word, solidus , was 
introduced in the later times of the Roman Empire, 
to distinguish between the two sorts of aurei or gold 
pieces, which were then current; one of which was 
just half of the other in weight. The whole one 
was termed the aureus solidus or, simply, the solidus. 

I may remark in passing, that it was from this solid 
aureus , that the Danes and Saxons corrupted their 
word ora) which, I have already said, meant in their 
laws the ounce. And this assisted in establishing the 
computation of 20 penny-weights to the ounce; for 
the weight of the aureus corresponding to that of two 
denarii and the then value of gold to silver being as 
ten to one, such an aureus was exchanged against 20 
denarii or pence. The half aureus, or gold penny, 
then exchanged for 10 pence, as we know it did in 
the time of Pliny the Elder. But afterwards under 
the Byzantine Empire, when a substitute for these 
two aurei was supplied by one, that bore likewise the 
name of solidus for its sanction, and was to the for¬ 
mer half aureus inversely as 72 to 84, either a calcu¬ 
lation by a strict proportion of weights or a change 


THE LAW OF ETHELRED. 


93 


in the relative values of gold and silver within what 
we are assured did occur, or both, made this new 
aureus solidus worth 12 silver pennies of 240 to the 
pound. The Franks, who used it as a coin, called it 
a solidus; the Danes, who used it so too, called it an 
ora: and both rated it as A of their silver pound. 
The Saxons, who employed it chiefly as a weight, 
reckoned it as 20 pennies and therefore equivalent 
to a mint ounce. 

Later, during parts of the twelfth and thirteenth 
centuries, this appellation was given in England to a 
coin of the value of 16 pennies. But this was not 
the Danish ora . It was the Saxon half-mancus; 
which, being an aureus or gold piece, underwent the 
same corruption as its predecessor—a corruption 
which is perpetuated, as in the Portuguese moidore 
(moneta de auro,) in several parts of Continental 
Europe to this day. That this computation of 16 
pence to the ora, was not formerly applied to other 
than coin-weights, is plain from a law of Ethelred, 
the predecessor of Canute, which directs: ut omne 
pondus sit marcatum ad pondus quo pecunia mea 
recipitur; et eorum singulum signetur, ita quod 15 
ore libram faciunt. By misapprehending the scope 
of this, however, some writers have taken the libra 
here to be the money-pound of 240 pence: and 
thence deduced an ora of 16 pence itself. But 
it is manifest that the pound in question is the com¬ 
mercial pound, that was to be marked by the money- 


94 


ORIGIN OF THE GROAT. 


pouncl ; with which it is placed in direct contrast: 
and it is to be so deduced as that it shall consist of 
15 orae; instead of 12 ; as were contained in said 
money-pound. I may remark here ; that this reck¬ 
oning of 16 pence per ora ; or ounce; has survived 
both of the money and commercial pounds from 
which it originated; and has been transferred to our 
avoirdupois count. It is hence that in this count we 
allow 16 drachms to the ounce. 

We see; therefore; that the Continental solidus 
was not entirely new in England at the period of the 
Conquest. I have met w T ith the term (for its first 
occurrence; I believe) in the Forest-canons of Cnut 
(or Canute) the Dane: but it seems to have been 
legalized as a method of reckoning; only after the 
Normans came. Whether it was actually coined of 
silver or not; which antiquaries have disputed; is 
here indifferent; in either case it was sufficiently 
distinguished from the old Saxon scilling; whose 
name it bore softened into shilling, by the latter’s 
being very early termed a gross, or groat, and kept 
to its value of four pence. The conjecture is at least 
plausible; that this last appellation was bestowed 
upon the Saxon shilling; because it was (die grosste) 
the largest actual silver coin of the time. 

As a nominal unit in accounts; it is certain that the 
Anglo-Norman shilling continued for some centuries; 
not only for money but for weight. An old law ; of 
uncertain date but ascribed by some to 51 Henry III; 


WEIGHT RECKONED IN SHILLINGS AND PENCE. 95 

a. d. 1266, and headed an Jlssise of Bread and Ale , 
gives both the prices and the weights for bread, in 
shillings and pence of the same system. This docu¬ 
ment has been much criticised, as shewing a care¬ 
lessness in the arithmetic of our English ancestors; 
but if any one will take the trouble, as I have done, 
to go over the thirty-nine articles of calculation in it, 
he will find that of the six errors which occur on the 
face of the statute, all but two are attributable to 
errors of the transcriber, which the insertion of a 
point in one case, and transposition and addition of 
one letter in the others, will correct. And of these 
two, the origin and mode of occurrence is so easy to 
be seen, that this law will bear a favorable compari¬ 
son with those that I have detailed in the former 
part of this Report. 

This correspondence of coin and weight continued 
until 1301; when Edward I struck out of the pound 
of silver 243 pennies, instead of 240 as before. 
From that time, the shillings and pence as parts of 
the pound, have been only monetary and nominal. 

With the other Dano-Saxon coins, the mancus y 
(manu-incusa,) the mark (or standard) the thrimsa 
(tremissis) etc. the aim of the present Report has 
nothing to do. Those that have been discussed 
were only taken up because they explained or illus¬ 
trated the English system of weights; and I shall 
terminate all that is to be said in regard to coins with 
a single remark, that a good deal of confusion might 


96 


THE POUND TROY. 


have been spared, in discriminating the currency of 
the same coins in different countries, had due atten¬ 
tion been paid to the relative values of the units of 
weight in those different countries. 

Although Ducange had shewn (unexceptionably 
as we see now) the value of the Sterling or Esterlin 
pound as compared with the pounds of Troyes and 
other places, about the beginning of the fourteenth 
century, we yet find learned writers after him and 
even using his document, speculating upon the troy 
pound, which had become domesticated in the 
Engish mint, as if it came from Tours or, higher 
still, from Troy. This last fancy is of a piece with a 
yet existing early Anglo-Norman charter, that de¬ 
clares the City of London to have been founded and 
built up after the model of the Homeric Troy; or 
with the still earlier tradition that would make one 
of the children of -Eneas, wandering either from ne¬ 
cessity or choice over Europe, at length settle himself 
in Britain. 

That the troy pound was not the pound of Tours, 
is plain from the following table; in which I have 
reduced Ducange’s statement which he took from a 
Register in the Chamber of Accounts at Paris, and 
that of Folkes from the mint in London, to pennies 
sterling. I have added also a similar reduction of 
the Roman pound; which I have rated according to 
the estimation of Arbuthnot,—not that J think it 
correct, but because it is current. I have also made 


PROTOTYPES OF THE STANDARDS OF GREAT-BRITAIN. 97 

a column, shewing the respective values of the mint- 
pounds, and another, shewing the corresponding 
market-pounds,—both expressed in troy grains. It 
will be seen that the Tours pound and the Roman 
pound are nearly identical. 

Sterling dwt. . Troy grains 

Ducnnge. Folkes. Mint-pound. Market-pound. 

English pound, 240. 240. 5400. 6750. 

Limoges do. 236.25 . 5315.6 

Tours do. 232.50 . 5231.25 

Troyes do. 255. 256. 5760. {™)0. 

Roman do. 232.23 233.14 5245.71 6994.3 


It is from the inflections and permutations (so to 
speak) of these various pounds, but principally of 
the two last, that the present English standards have 
resulted. That inflections of this sort should occur 
is very natural and consistent; from the time of 
Athelstan, England began to take the rank in Conti¬ 
nental Europe which she has since carried to such a 
height; and across the narrow strait dividing the 
two, the pulses of trade were communicated and 
typified in the weights and measures of the traders. 

It is, besides, as impossible as it is useless to ex¬ 
pect, in a matter of this kind, a precise historical 
epoch marking when this or that custom or reckon¬ 
ing was introduced. As in the physical so in the 
political world, the origin of what comes to be a 
mighty developement, is often so hidden as to be 
attributed to chance; while its nourishment and 
14 



98 STATUTE DE ANSULIS OF STEPHEN. 

growth are as obscure as if they depended on ca¬ 
price. Except one,—the French metrical system,— 
I know no metrology which has a new and indepen¬ 
dent era of its own, or can point to the register of 
its birth and baptism. And in this, it may be ques¬ 
tioned whether the advantage of historical precision 
(not to speak of the intrinsics of the system) was 
not dearly bought in the convulsions of the times 
that gave it;—whether it is not better to have no 
baptismal certificate at all, than to have one written, 
not in ink but blood. In this regard, the English 
and French systems are as opposite as their coasts. 

When, therefore, the troy and avoirdupois weights 
now established in England, first came there, would 
be the subject of a fruitless research: they were 
blending themselves in the commerce of the country 
from the earliest times of their existence any where. 
If they did not always show themselves in a distinct 
recognition as units, they affected the proportionate 
computation of the heavier commercial weights. 
The law, for instance, of King Stephen (not now on 
record, but mentioned by a writer in a time not long 
subsequent,) de ansulis , etc. proves this. The an- 
sula was the steel-yard; called so from the ansula , or 
hook, by which the articles were suspended. Being 
of Roman origin, it most likely was graduated to 
weigh by the Roman market-pound, i. e. the present 
avoirdupois pound, which as seen in the Table was 
more than a half-ounce heavier than the Saxon 
pound. 


AVOIRDUPOIS WEIGHT. 


99 


This avoirdupois pound may be what is referred 
to, in an existing statute of 25 Edward III (a. d. 
1351); which says: that the weight, called aunsell , 
shall be altogether abolished, that every one shall 
buy and sell by balances , and that their weights shall 
be according to the standard of the Exchequer. It 
is a little curious that a provision, similar in terms, 
should have been found expedient in Maryland more 
than three centuries after. This is exemplified in 
the statute against steel-yards carrying gross weight. 

The name avoirdupois , frequently occurs in the 
English statutes; but generally as indicative of parti¬ 
cular commodities which were sold by weight,—lite¬ 
rally weighable articles. Its first use, when it may 
be supposed to refer to a unit of weight,—at least 
the first that I have found—is in the statute of 
Stamford, as it is called, dating under 3 Edward II, 
a. d. 1309. But its influence is manifested in a 
still earlier statute, to which I have already had 
reference, denominated an Assise for Weights and 
Measures. This act is placed, in the latest publica¬ 
tion of Statutes at large by the Commission for that 
purpose, very properly among the laws of uncertain 
date. In some of the earlier collections, part of it is 
found under 51 Henry III, a. d. 1266, and part un¬ 
der 31 Edward I, a. d. 1303; and it is sometimes 
referred to by the title of Compositio mensurarum of 
1304. Its phraseology shews, however, that it has 
undergone frequent interpolations, and justifies our 


100 


THE SPECIE POUND. 


attributing it to some previous time. It rates the 
pound of money and spices* at 20 solidi (of 12 
pence,) the electuary (or medicine) pound at 12 
ounces of 20 penny-weights, and the pound for all 
other articles at 25 solidi or 15 ounces. In so far, it 
agrees with the prescription in the law of Ethelred 
the Saxon, before quoted. 

In this statute, there are no less than three differ¬ 
ent petrw, or stone-weights, mentioned; one of 12 lb., 
the London stone of 12.5 lb., and one of 14 lb. 
These are within a fraction of the proportions of the 
commercial pounds of Tours, of London, and of 16 
troy ounces. The ratio of the two last is as 100 to 
112; or precisely our present long hundred-weight. 
I may state here as the reason for giving in the Table 
two commercial pounds of troy ounces, that, to the 

* Upon this, I submit to the learned whether our English word specie, as ap¬ 
plied to a metallic weight does not arise thus. The statute in the text says: 
“ quelibet lb de den et speciebus et confeccionibus, utpote in electuario, con¬ 
stat ex xx solidis,” etc. Now species in the lower Latinity (espices in the old 
French) meant spices; which, with pennies (or money) and medical confec¬ 
tions, were weighed by the pound of 20 solidi. Such a pound, therefore, 
would be equally understood whether it were called the money pound or the 
specie pound; and, without a catachresis, the latter title might very well come 
to predominate over the former. 

That this weighing of spices by the money pound was from old time ha¬ 
bitual, Pliny has long ago shewn. He says, in regard to the Indian pepper, 
which grows wild: “— et tamen pondere emitur ut aurum vel argentum;”— 
not that it was as precious by weight as gold or silver, for if it were as precious 
as the one it could not be as precious as the other, nor that it was bought by 
weight, for that was the case with a great many articles besides, but that it was 
bought by the same weights which were used for weighing gold or silver. See 
Plin. N. H. lib. xii. c. 14. Tom. iii. p. 10. Ed. Barbou, 1779. 

As any thing which relates to specie, in the vernacular sense of it, has an 
intimate connexion with weights and measures, I hope to be excused for this 
disquisition here. 


WEST-SAXON AND MERCIAN POUNDS. 


101 


best of my knowledge, the pound of Troyes never 
had a market-pound corresponding with it in the 
place whence it drew its name. It was the pound of 
the goldsmiths; who devised it for the purposes of 
gain> and started it at first, as its proportions shew, 
by adding one-tenth to the Roman pound. By the 
latter they sold, by the former they bought. In this, 
they did exactly what the statute-staple (as it is 
called) of Edward III, in 1353, affirms was being 
done then; when it says, q* ascuns marchanz acha- 
tent—par un pois et vendent p un autre—they 
bought by one sort of pound and sold by another. 
But when this bullion-pound came into England, the 
exchange for it in commercial pounds was regulated 
according to the previous habits of the different dis¬ 
tricts where the occasion might arise: the West 
Saxons took fifteen of its ounces, the Mercians six¬ 
teen, to make a market-pound. 

So again in this statute, there are two sorts of 
sacks; one of 28 stone, the other of 30 stone. The 
ratio between these is almost precisely that of the 
Saxon and the troy 15 ounce pounds. In the time 
of Edward III, by the statute already referred to 
regarding the aunsell of 1351, the sack was reckoned 
at 26 stone of 14 lb. each; in this still retaining the 
proportion of the troy 15 ounce pound as far as 
the weight of the stone was concerned; but in the 
combination for the sacks, adopting a proportion 
almost identical with that of the Saxon market-pound 
to the Roman pound. 


102 


VARIETY IN THE HUNDRED-WEIGHTS. 


The computations of hundred-weights are still 
more various. They are of 100; 108 ; 110 and 120 
pounds. These are very nearly the ratios of the 
Saxon pound ; the troy 15 ounce pound; the troy 
16 ounce pound; and that of the troy bullion-pound 
to the Roman avoirdupois pound. 

One phrase in this statute has been supposed to 
refer expressly to the troy weight. It had given 
the weight of the chaldron; by one computation; at 
175 stone of 12 lb. a piece ; making 2100 lb.; it then 
goes on to give another reckoning by which the chal¬ 
dron is made to contain 168 stone ; adding: et hoc 
est secundum Troni ponderationem. All the trans¬ 
lations that I have seen ; render this word Troni by 
Troy ; but it is evident from the numbers; that troy 
weight has nothing to do with it. I know that the 
whole passage is faulty; and that it has suffered not 
only by transcribers but apparently by commentators: 
yet if, instead of Troni ; we read Londi (and those 
familiar with the early English manuscripts; will 
know how easy such a change could have been made 
by a mere copyist) it will be cleared up. The Lon¬ 
don weight required 12.51b. to the stone; and 168 
stone of 12.5 lb. are just equal to 175 of 121b. The 
chaldrons are thus in the two reckonings the same; 
it would be very singular if they were not: but the 
text says nothing about the weight of the stone in 
the second case; because that followed in its being 
said to be according to London iveight. This propor- 


TROY-NOVANT. 


103 


tion of 168 to 175 is almost exactly that of the Saxon 
commercial pound to the avoirdupois pound; and 
indicates the currency of the latter. 

We need not, however, resort to this hypothesis 
of an error in transcription to sustain the interpreta¬ 
tion of a London weight if we will admit, with 
some, the influence (greater than I suppose it ever 
attained) of the Trojan story to which I just now re¬ 
ferred, and which, about the date of this very statute, 
Geoffry of Monmouth had contributed to resuscitate. 
According to that, New Troy or Troy-novant is the 
synonym of London. It is fair to say, nevertheless, 
that the advocates upon this fiction make quite a dif¬ 
ferent application of it. For instance, Davies Gil¬ 
bert—one of the Weight and Measure Commission 
of 1818 by which the present English standards 
were fixed, and one of the successors of that very 
President of the Royal Society who re-discovered 
and proved the Saxon pound—believes (not the 
legend of Brutus, of course, but) the troy pound to 
be the old London pound from the time of Edward 
the Confessor; and he quotes the synonym as proof. 
But the fact is, that this piece of heraldry was quite 
extinct in the time of the Confessor; it had been 
faded for two hundred years before, and was not be¬ 
gun to be re-blazoned for nearly as long a period 
afterwards. 

The troy pound is, however, specifically mentioned, 
very little more than a century later than the statute 


104 EPOCH OF THE TROY AND AVOIRDUPOIS POUND. 

just now quoted^ in one of 2 Henry V; and a few 
years after, that again in one of 2 Henry VI; the last 
of which even determines its value. It rates silver 
plate and bullion of sterling alloy at 30 shillings the 
pound troy, besides the fashion if it is in piece; 
saying, that its value as coin was no more than 32 
shillings. Now, ever since the thirteenth year of 
Henry IV, the Tower pound had been coined into 
thirty shillings; and if the troy pound was worth 
thirty-two, their proportions must have been as 30 
to 32, or as 15 to 16, which is precisely the pro¬ 
portion given in the verdict establishing the troy 
pound at the mint. 

Troy weight is again mentioned by the statute 12 
Henry VII, of which I have already spoken, and 
which is referred to in our Maryland act of 1671. 
It is there used, along with the Roman avoirdupois 
weight, for the combinations of the new capacity- 
standards of 1496. Some of the English writers 
have supposed, that it was also at this epoch intro¬ 
duced into the mint; but this is only an inference. 
Against this, are both the existing coins and the ex¬ 
press adoption of the troy weight at the mint in 
1526. From this last date, the English nummulary 
and commercial pounds have been troy and avoir¬ 
dupois, very nearly as they are now. 

The existing English statutes shew that in the 
reign of Edward III, brass standards, both of Weight 
and Capacity-measure, were made and distributed by 


WEIGHINGS OF GRAHAM AND SHUCKBURGH. 


105 


public authority; the Exchequer contained, at one 
time, some standards supposed to be older than those. 
The linear measure of Henry VII, and his capacity- 
measures under the laws of 1494 and 1496, have 
been already mentioned. But in 1743, when Mr. 
Graham’s examination was made, there were no 
standard-weights that could be dated higher than the 
age of Queen Elizabeth. Taking these as the stan¬ 
dard of comparison, the results were as under: 


Exchequer, 12 ounces: 
Founders’ Company: 
Mint, 12 ounces: 

Mint pound: 


Troy Pound Avoirdupois 
in Pound in 

Troy grains. Troy grains. 

5760.000 7000.1375 . 
5761.750 7001.0150 . 
5761.875 
5760.125 


Date of 
Standards. 

about 1588. 
marked 1684. 

do. 1707. 
used in 1742- 


The comparisons of Sir George Shuckburgh were 
made principally with a view to deriving a unit of 
Weight; which he, as Whitehurst had before him, 
proposed to find in a cubic inch of distilled water. 
He did not therefore examine the old standards; but 
compared the weights made for him by Mr. Trough- 
ton, with those that had been made by Bird with 
Harris the assay-master of the mint, and reported to 
the House of Commons by the Committee of 1758. 
There were four of these; a one-pound and two- 
pound weight, in duplicate, resulting as under: 

Parliamentary 

Troughton’s lb. Mean 1 lb. Mean 2 lbs. 

5760 grains. 5763.715 grains. 5763.850 grains. 

The weight which he assigned to a cubic inch of 
15 



106 


IMPERIAL STANDARD POUND. 


water, was expressed in grains; each of which was 
of the mean of the Parliamentary standards. 

When the Commission of 1818 came to revise his 
observations, they were found substantially so accu¬ 
rate as to justify an adherence to them; which their 
acceptation, for five and twenty years among the 
learned in Continental Europe, rendered besides so 
desirable. And as the Parliamentary one-pound 
weight (called a. 1758) an existing unit, differed 
the least from the mean result, it was recommended 
by the Commissioners and adopted by the Legisla¬ 
ture as the “unit or only standard measure of weight 
from which all other weights shall be derived ” 
under the name of “the Imperial Standard Troy 
Pound.” The avoirdupois pound was derived from 
this standard by the ratio, which the experiments of 
Graham shew to have been habitual for two hundred 
and fifty years at least, viz: that of 7000 grains to 
5760 grains. 

The test of value for these grains is supposed to 
rest upon a permanent and universal natural law— 
the gravitation of distilled water at a certain tempera¬ 
ture and under a certain atmospheric pressure. And 
the value itself is such, that 252.458 brass grains 
(but of specific gravity undefined) will be in just 
equilibrium with a cubic inch of distilled water, the 
mercury in a barometer standing at 30 inches and in 
the thermometer of Fahrenheit at 62°, both for the 
air and for the water. In testing or recovering the 



RECIPROCITY OP LIOUID AND DRY CAPACITY-MEASURES. 107 

value of the inch, should that be the question, it is 
presumed to be such as is contained 39.13929 times 
in the length of a pendulum that, in a vacuum and at 
the level of mid-tide under the latitude of London, 
vibrates seconds of mean time. I have already 
spoken of the theory of this; I will only add that 
the precise reproduction of the inch or of the unit of 
weight, by observation of the natural phenomena 
with which they have been connected, would be a 
problem requiring the highest and most successful 
efforts of Science and Art combined. 


3°. Measures of Capacity. 

The connection, from the most ancient times, be¬ 
tween Liquid and Dry Measures authorizes them to 
be treated together; and their reciprocity, which is 
a marked feature in the Saxon system, renders such 
a treatment here peculiarly necessary. I therefore 
make but one class of both. 

So great was this reciprocity, that even the names 
of some measures came to be interchanged; for ex¬ 
ample, the gallon—a word originally applicable to 
liquids only, and a vessel which, when filled with 
wine, was the eighth part by weight of the bushel of 
wheat—was employed to signify also a very different 
measure, the eighth part by volume of the bushel; 
explanatory epithets distinguishing them were not 
alway added; and to this may be traced in part the 


108 EaUIPONDERANCE THE BASIS OF THE SYSTEM. 

confusion enveloping the former capacity-standards 
in England^ and the final step there of doing away 
with them altogether. The very beauty of the sys¬ 
tem increased its fragility and contributed to its de¬ 
cay. A similar instance might be alleged from seve¬ 
ral of the other denominations; the bushel only; 
which means primarily a textile fabric; has been 
uniformly held to its signification as a unit of dry- 
measure. Both of these terms—gallon and bushel— 
are found in the lower Latinity; before they were 
borrowed by the Saxons in Britain. 

In proportioning at first the measures for sub¬ 
stances in drops and in grains respectively; the simple 
idea seems to have been— equipondercince. The 
vintner and the corn-grower; for instance; although 
their transactions were made by measure; in reality 
interchanged their commodities by weight; the cor¬ 
responding measures of wine and wheat; although 
of very different magnitudes; yet contained the same 
number of pounds. For any one article; the magni¬ 
tude of the unit of measure is determinable by the 
multiplication of linear dimension; though even in 
such case the easiest and most practical method of 
estimating or comparing magnitudes is by weight of 
their contents: but in making transitions among ca¬ 
pacity-measures for different articles; it is absolutely 
necessary to resort to weighing in some part of the 
process. And as commerce gradually increased and 
a greater number of articles came to be offered in 



ORIGIN OF THE COMMERCIAL WEIGHT. 109 

market^ the constant reciprocity between magnitude 
and weight would come also to be more fully ac¬ 
knowledged and applied. Any vessel; after its con¬ 
tents of different articles had been once weighed; 
would serve either as a capacity-measure for any ; or ? 
filled with one ; as a weight itself to balance against 
all others. Thus as between wheat and wine; a ves¬ 
sel first constructed by linear rules to be a certain 
part of a cubic foot; and found afterwards to contain 
twelve ounces of wheat; would be found then to con¬ 
tain fifteen or sixteen ounces of wine. According as 
it contained one or the other; it would be a weight 
or pound of twelve ounces or of fifteen or sixteen 
ounces; as determinate in theory; as if it were of 
metal itself; and more universally applicable in early 
times; when all metal was too precious to be kept 
merely as a means for counterpoising. In such ap¬ 
plication is easy to be seen the origin; both in value 
and denomination; of the commercial pound. 

All this is exemplified in the English system; as it 
had been before in the establishments of other coun¬ 
tries. The earliest English law expressly on the 
subject—the Jlssise for Weights and Measures — 
which I have before spoken of; and which certainly 
antedates the fourteenth century; reads (when trans¬ 
lated) as follows: 

“By ordinance of the whole realm of England; 
has been established the measure of our lord the 
King; to wit: that the English penny which is 


110 


ANCIENT ASSISE FOR CAPACITY-MEASURES. 


called sterling, round and without clipping, shall 
weigh 32 grains of corn in the middle of the ear; 
and the ounce should weigh 20 pennies: 
and 12 ounces make the London pound: 
and 8 pounds make the gallon of wine : 
and 8 gallons of wine make the London bushel: 
and 8 bushels make the London quarter.” 

It then goes on with various reckonings by sacks , 
stones , and hundreds , and winds up with a note on 
the distinctions between the specie pound of 12 
ounces and the pound “for all other things” of 15 
ounces—particulars, to which I have already referred 
in speaking of the measures of weight. 

The terms of this law point plainly to its parent¬ 
age. It is a rifaccimento of the two systems most 
extensively recognized in Europe; and some of its 
proportions go up to the epoch when linear measures 
of capacity preceded weights. To take these terms 
in order: the proportion of the penny sterling to 
the grains of wheat is that of the Roman mint and 
commercial pounds. There is no direct proof, as I 
said before, that the Saxon penny-weight was divided 
into grains; nor is there, that I am aware of, any 
precise knowledge as to the date when the troy 
penny-weight came to be counted in grains, either. 
Both, no doubt, conformed to the Roman reckoning 
of 24 lentes to the scriptulum or scruple. This pro¬ 
portion of 24 to 32 (or of 12 to 16) answered very 
well with the wheat of Italy; but did not correspond 



DUODECIMAL COUNT AND MULTIPLE BY EIGHT. Ill 

in the case of the lighter wheat of Gaul, which the 
Roman settlers introduced into Britain, and which 
the troubles of the Octarchy kept as an article of 
commercial import long after the earliest Saxon 
times. The introduction of a new pound served, 
therefore, as the occasion for making the correction 
due to the actual correlative weights of the wine and 
wheat brought to the British market: and this cor¬ 
rection was made, in taking a commercial pound of 
15 ounces. But the old ratio was still left in the 
count; because, as with the length measures, the 
number of grains of corn was only an indication, not 
a constituent, of the unit; the standard of the whole 
system exposed in the law just given, was the silver 
penny, of which 240 went to the sterling or London 
pound. The disappointment, therefore, of some ob¬ 
servers in the early part of the 18th century, who 
could not get 32 grains of wheat to weigh 24 metal¬ 
lic (then, troy) grains, and the gratulation of others 
who could, belong more to the question of patriotism 
than of accuracy in either physical or historical lore. 

How 20 sterling pennies came to constitute the 
ounce, I have already explained; and the reckoning 
of 12 ounces to the pound, ascends to times long an¬ 
terior to what I have taken as limiting the view r of 
this Report. This duodecimal count, as well as the 
frequent recurrence of the multiples by 8, both mark 
the Greek period; when a people, subtle in arith¬ 
metic, had perceived and applied the abstract rela- 


112 LINEAR EVALUATION OF THE WINE-GALLON. 

tions of numbers. It would be curious to point out, 
did my space and object allow, the varied harmonies 
observable in this very statute; it is enough, how¬ 
ever, to say that the number 12 was chosen, because 
it is the sum of all the aliquot parts (including unity 
as a divisor) of the first perfect number, or, more 
popularly, it is divisible into more w T hole factors than 
any other number, not a multiple of it. The adop¬ 
tion of 8, as a multiple and divisor was peculiarly 
appropriate in capacity or cubic measures; because 
it is the first perfect cube in the decimal series. 
Hence it was that, in all the elder systems of mea¬ 
sures, the liquid gallon was, in dimension, •§■ of the 
cubic foot: and there can be little doubt that it. was 
so still at the time of the origination, if not the 
passage, of this law. 

It is true that the phrase itself of the law does not 
determine the wine-gallon otherwise than by weight: 
but even thus, an indirect valuation may be deduced 
for it in linear measure. The 8 pounds, which were 
to make the gallon of wine, were not nummulary 
pounds but, as is plain from the special note in the 
statute, commercial pounds; wine was among the 
“all other things” weighed by the pound of 15 
ounces. Now, 8 pounds of 15 ounces are 120 
ounces sterling; and the sterling ounce being tV 
lighter than the troy ounce, 8 sterling pounds are 
equivalent to 112.5 troy ounces or 54000 troy grains. 
The weight of Gascony or Bourdeaux wine, repeat- 



WEIGHT OF EARLIEST WINE-GALLON. 113 

edly referred to by name in the English statutes of 
the period during which the district was an appa¬ 
nage of the English crown, and therefore fairly pre¬ 
sumable to have been intended in this, is very nearly 
(according to the latest determination of the weight 
of water, and exactly, according to some former ob¬ 
servations) 250 troy grains to the cubic inch; which 
gives precisely (*ttf # =) 216 cubic inches to the 
gallon, or i of the cubic foot. 

Farther, these 54000 grains are just 10 Saxon 
mint-pounds. I have already noticed, in speaking of 
the Roman capacity-measures, the coincidence be¬ 
tween the congius and the English gallon—both being 
of the weight of 10 money-pounds: and I notice this 
weight again to remark that, with the proportions of 
12 and 15 ounces to constitute the wheat and wine 
pounds respectively, the vessel which contained 10 
pounds of wine would hold just 8 pounds of wheat. 
In fact, some of the older editions of the English 
statutes have in this very place supplied the words, 
so as to make it read “8 pounds of wheat make the 
gallon of wine. 55 Such an alteration, although it 
makes the deductions no clearer, renders the pas¬ 
sage more symmetrical: it keeps the pounds to the 
computation of 12 ounces apiece; and, combining 
throughout the proportionate specific gravities of the 
two staples, it ascends from the weight of wheat to 
the measure of wine and thence again crosses over 
from the weight of the gallon of wine to the measure 
16 


114 


BUSHEL OF 2160 INCHES. 


of the bushel of wheat. With or without this addi¬ 
tion, however, the statute finally weighs the bushel 
and makes it of the ton. 

Such is the analysis of this statute. Under it and 
under the old laws which it was intended to re-enact, 
the gallon of wine was in dimensions 216 cubic 
inches, or a cube whose side was 6 inches—the inch 
being almost or perfectly identical with its value at 
the present day; and the bushel must have been, 
(accepting the proportions of the 12 and 15 ounce 
pounds as the ratio of the specific weights of wine 
and wheat,) in dimension 2160 inches, or such a ves¬ 
sel as filled with wheat would counterbalance a cubic 
foot of wine, the tare being the same in both cases. 
There is no wine-gallon remaining of exactly this 
size: but the Irish gallon,—which we may presume 
to have been in accordance with this law; which re¬ 
mained, till twenty years ago, unaffected by the re¬ 
formations of the English standards; and by which 
the excellent w T ine of Bourdeaux, that one meets 
with in that island, is yet measured,—is of 217.6 
cubic inches. So small a difference may warrant the 
supposition, that the one was made for the other. If 
the vessel were a cylinder of the proportions subse¬ 
quently defined in the first act prescribing a wine 
gallon by linear measure, an excess in height by ^ 
of an inch, above what was due under a constant 
pressure and temperature to 216 cubic inches, would 
give rise to the Irish gallon. And so with the 


THE SO-CALLED WINCHESTER BUSHEL. 


115 


bushel, a similar variation (but in the contrary sense) 
by A of an inch; would have produced the old Win¬ 
chester bushel of the Exchequer, of 2145.6 cubic 
inches. Those who are familiar with the artistical 
manipulation necessary for capacity-standards at the 
present day, can best judge how likely would have 
been at that period, such variations. 

One might therefore plausibly maintain, if so in¬ 
clined, that the so-called Winchester bushel, actually 
executed in the time of Henry VII and found about 
two centuries later to contain 2145.6 cubic inches, 
failed, either by its ow T n error or by the degradation 
of the standard from which it was copied, to give the 
just content of 2160 inches aimed at by this or older 
statutes; And such an opinion would not be pre¬ 
cluded entirely, by the fact of there having been, at 
the time of the execution of this copy, a standard in 
the Exchequer much smaller, (2124 inches) dating 
as of the period of the first successor of the Con¬ 
queror: for the difference between the two, coupled 
with the name of the former, would indicate for its 
original an age before the Norman settlement, when, 
as under Edward the Confessor, Winchester was the 
capital of the kingdom. 

I do not, however, myself mean to sustain this 
opinion. The name of Winchester was recognized 
for this standard in 1670, under Charles II, (for the 
first time by any English law as far as I am aware, 
although our Maryland Act had so termed it, thirty 


116 EARLY RATIO BETWEEN WHEAT AND WINE. 

years before); it is rather an excess of research to 
trace its title, as some have done, to the statute of 
Winchester, under Richard II; and I think, finally, 
that I shall shew directly a much more natural and 
direct origination of this bushel of 2145.6 inches, 
though as long as the proportional gravities of wheat 
and wine remained uncorrected as being 8 to 10, the 
bushel of 2160 inches undoubtedly belonged to the 
undeniable wine-gallon, that was •§• of the cubic foot. 

It is hopeless to look for this correction any where 
but in the statutes themselves. We may arbitrarily 
assume it, as some have done, to have been mani¬ 
fested in the substitution of the troy and avoirdupois 
pounds for the old sterling and 15 ounce pounds: 
but what has been said already in this Report will 
shew, I think, that the troy and avoirdupois pounds 
have in reality nothing to do with it; different in the 
place of their origin and in the epochs of their ac¬ 
ceptation, coming in gradually with the articles and 
phrases of foreign commerce, they could not repre¬ 
sent the proportionate gravities of substances, one of 
which was, at the time of the statute under conside¬ 
ration, extensively grown in Britain. We must ad¬ 
mit an instance of most extraordinary balance of 
errors, or an example of sagacity more than human, 
if we suppose that the English lawgivers, abandon¬ 
ing their own old Easterling weights and going to 
one climate for a new nummulary pound, had se¬ 
lected from another a new commercial weight, be- 


RATIOS ADMITTED AT VARIOUS EPOCHS. 117 

cause these two new weights would represent in 
England^—what neither was calculated to do any 
where else,—the specific gravities of wheat and 
water; respectively. And we have then to admit 
besides that the new proportions; so logically com* 
posed; do not after all represent the specific gravi¬ 
ties of wheat and wine, which is the very point in 
question. 

If; leaving this mode; we resort to actual experi¬ 
ment and seek to retrace the steps our ancestors 
might have pursued; we find an issue hardly less 
vague. I need not stop to point out the causes of 
such vagueness; nor why it is unavoidable: I shall 
merely throw together in a tabular form the chief 
results which philosophers have sanctioned or which; 
as part of national establishment; remain to be quoted 
at this day. 

Weight under equal Volumes 


Roman proportion of 12 to 16 oz. 

Wheat. 

144. 

Wine. 

192. 

Pliny’s account of Gallic wheat, 

144. 

186.88 

Saxon proportion of 24 to 32 grains, 

144. 

192. 

Saxon proportion of 12 to 15 oz., 

144. 

180. 

Sir Jonas Moore’s Experiment on British wheat, 

144. 

199.32 

Oxford Phil. Soc. Experiment in 1685, 

144. 

185.21 

Exp’t on the bushel of 2145.6 inches in 1696, 

144. 

177.55 

Troy and avoirdupois proportion in Arbuthnot, 

144. 

174.86 

Troy and avoirdupois proportion, 

144. 

175. 

President J. Q. Adams’ deduction, 143 : 175 or 

144. 

176.22 

Standard wheat in Maryland, .... 

144. 

184.32 


The wine in this table is rated throughout at 250 
grains troy per cubic inch. 



118 IDENTITY OF THE TON AND THE TUN. 

It is apparent from this that observations, on a 
small scale at least, lead to no accordant or useful 
result; and to open the combinations of reasoning or 
error which have produced wine gallons from 217.6 
to 231 cubic inches and bushels from 2124 to 2224 
cubic inches, we must find a key somewhere else. 

In fact, a statute of 2 Henry VI, a. d. 1423, which, 
like the one we have just come from, professes to 
exemplify the ordinances “of old time, 55 does unlock 
all the difficulty: by it, the shipping unit—the ton— 
in which both liquid and dry capacity-measures 
finally merge, and which by the so-called Act of 1266 
had been applied to the measure of wheat, is here 
extended and applied to the measure of wine. It 
prescribes, as the old assise of the ton, that 

the tun of Gascoigne wine should be 252 gallons 
the pipe . . 126 gallons 

the hogshead . . 63 gallons. 

Now, comparing the two assises together, we find 
the hogshead of wine equiponderant with the quar¬ 
ter of wheat; four of either constituted a ton, or tun, 
of shipping. But if we keep to the ratio of the 12 
and 15 ounce pounds and apply the terms given in 
the assise of 1266, we must make the hogshead (not 
of 63 but) of 64 gallons: such being the number of 
corn-gallons in the quarter of wheat. The propor¬ 
tionate difference between these two numbers is the 
discount which our ancestors, not in 1423 only nor 
in 1353 (when, by another statute, this assise of the 


RATIO BETWEEN WHEAT AND WINE BY STATUTE. 119 


tun is also referred to,) but in both these years as u of 
old time/ 1 * * * 5 found necessary to make upon the com¬ 
mercial pound of 15 ounces, in order to have the 
physical equiponderance which both the symmetry of 
the system and the balance sheet of the merchant 
required. This discount results in a commercial 
pound of (II • 15 zzz) 14.765625 ounces; and for spe¬ 
cific weights of wheat and wine, in the ratio of 144 
to 177.1875. 

This will be perfectly plain, if any one will take 
the trouble to tabulate all the results of the several 
factors in the two systematic developements of these 
two statutes. I shall present here an extract from 
such a tabulation. 

Wheat System or Nummulary Reckoning. 

Ton. Quarter. Bushel. Gallon. lb. oz. dwt. grains of Wheat. 

1 4 32 256 2048 24576 491520 15728640 

1 4 — 252 2016 30240 604800 19353600 

Tun. Hhd. Gallon. lb. oz. dwt. grains of Wheat. 

Wine System or Commercial Reckoning. 

The numbers expressive of gallons and pounds in 
this table require to be applied inversely to 15 

ounces, to give the rational commercial pound; while 
those from the ounces inclusive, are directly in the 
proportion of the relative gravities of wheat and 
wine. All lead to the same numerical result. 

It makes no difference, whether this proportion 
was accepted from caprice or by trial; from its near 
accord with the experiment of 1696 given in the 
table, it was most probably from the latter. Nor is it 



120 


LINEAR ORIGIN OF CAPACITY-MEASURES. 


even of moment whether it is the true proportion, in 
the sense of a universal natural law; such as has 
been imagined and eloquently insisted on by a dis¬ 
tinguished writer upon the subject in our own coun¬ 
try. The simple question is: what was the adopted 
proportion?—and to this, the statutes return, I think, 
a straight and decisive answer. That the answer 
should not have been listened to before, is of no 
importance. 

With this recognized proportion, we may now 
proceed to the exposition of the various liquid and 
dry standards which have been constructed at differ¬ 
ent epochs; and shew how the discrepancies, which 
I have already alluded to, had their rise. I may re¬ 
mark first, however, that such capacity-measwres are 
with propriety so named: they originated primarily 
from linear measures, although determined correc¬ 
tively by weight. The common unit was the foot; the 
half-foot cubed gave the content of the liquid gallon, 
which would hold also 8 money-pounds of grain; 
and corresponding was the corn-gallon (unfortunately 
termed so) as much larger than the wine-gallon as 
177.1875 is greater than 144, and intended to hold 
likewise 8 commercial pounds of wine. But the 
corn-gallon, filled with wheat, and the wine-gallon, 
filled with wine, were equiponderant. 

Similarly equiponderant were to be the contents in 
wine of the unitary foot when cubed, and the con¬ 
tents in wheat of the bushel, whose volume was to 


RATIO OF THE BUSHEL AND THE CUBIC FOOT. 121 

that of the cubic foot as 177.1875 to 144; all the 
relations of the bushel to the cubic foot were similar 
to those of the corn to the wine-gallon; and as the 
cube of a foot is 8 times that of the half-foot, so the 
capacity of the bushel is 8 times that of the corn- 
gallon. 

I need not go through the elementary transforma¬ 
tions of these numerical data; it is sufficient to pre¬ 
sent the results. The wine-gallon of 216 inches 
thus gives a corn-gallon of 265.78 and a bushel of 
2126.25 cubic inches. The bushel in the Exchequer, 
marked 1091, and now deriving fresh support for that 
as the true date, was 2124 inches; and the Rumford 
corn-gallon of 1228, contains 266.25 inches. The 
Rumford quart gives 264.8 inches; and the mean of 
the two a gallon of 265.53 inches. Such differences, 
assuming absolute accuracy in the workmanship, are 
positively within the influence of temperature at 
opposite seasons of the year. 

Compared with the gallon of 216 inches, the Irish 
gallon of 217.6 is without the limits of temperature; 
?ind we must suppose either that an allowable error 
occurred in the workmanship of the standard, or that 
there was a designed correction of the old Roman 
assumption of water and wine being equiponderant. 
Taking the specific weight of water as 1. and the 
gallon of water at 216 inches, the Oxford experiment 
in 1685, which found for claret or Gascoigne wine a 
specific gravity of 0.993, would re-affirm the possi- 
17 


122 ORIGIN OF THE WINCHESTER MEASURE. 

ble observations made before 1266 and result in an 
equiponderant wine-gallon of 217.52 inches. But 
however this may be, the acthal new unit of 217.6 
inches corresponds, upon the preceding data, to a 
corn-gallon of 267.75 and a bushel of 2142 cubic 
inches. Such a corn-gallon is rather larger than 
even the Rumford gallon and indicates therefore the 
anomaly of the wine-measure unit. But the bushel 
is no doubt the original of the Winchester bushel; 
which I take to have been introduced by the Third 
Henry, surnamed of Winchester, and to have been 
thus denominated to distinguish it from the other 
and smaller Rumford measure before in use. 

Such was the state of the capacity standards, down 
to nearly the close of the fifteenth century, under 
Henry VII. In the seventh year of this Prince (in 
1491) an act of the Commons requested that stan¬ 
dards might be made, for distribution to the counties, 
conformable to these in the Exchequer; and again in 
1495, a statute directed their construction, and closes 
with a schedule of forty-three county-towns in which 
such standards are to be deposited. It gives no pre¬ 
scription as to the assise, farther than that there 
should be “ 8 bushels raised and stricken to the quar¬ 
ter of corn; 14 pounds to the stone of wool; and 26 
stone to the sack. 55 But in the very next year, 1496, 
another statute, after referring to the preceding and 
to its actual execution, recites that the weights and 
measures made under it, “upon more diligent exam- 


STATUTE OF 12 HENRY VII; 1496. 123 

ination had synz the making of said statute, proved 
defective and not made according to the old laws 
and statutes thereof ordeyned within the said realm: 
Wherefore ” it goes on to enact—“ that the measure 
of every bushel contain 8 gallons of whete; 

every gallon 8 pounds of whete, troi wt.; 

every pound 12 unces of troi weight; 

every unce 20 sterlings; and 

every sterling be of the weight of 32 cornes of 
whete that grow in the middes of the eare of whete, 
according to the old laws of this land.” It directs, 
then, that all these erroneous measures be sent back 
“to be broken, and with the stuff and metal of the 
same—other new ones be made.” 

This is the statute referred to in our Maryland 
Act of 1671; and of which I have already said, that 
it legalized neither the Winchester bushel nor the 
habitual wine-gallon of the Province. The Win¬ 
chester bushel can by no contrivance be made out of 
it: the Maryland wine-gallon, which contained then 
(as now) 231 cubic inches, does indeed flow from it, 
if when it says “gallons of wheat,” one supposes it 
meant gallons of wine: but such a gallon was not 
legalized by it, for none such was made under it. 
The wine-gallon of 231 inches was first made legal 
more than two centuries later (in 1706) by the sta¬ 
tute of 6 Anne; although the popular opinion, both 
in England and in Maryland for a long time antece¬ 
dent, had been that such was the true intended size 


124 WINE-GALLON OF 224 CUBIC INCHES. 

of the gallon. I incline to think that no wine-gallon 
was made immediately upon this Act. 

For in the Exchequer in 1688, when an inquiry 
was instituted in regard to the Excise, there appears 
to have been no wine-gallon at all; only corn-gallons. 
And the wine-gallon at Guildhall, by which the 
guaging of liquors in the port of London was regu¬ 
lated and which was currently estimated to hold 
231, the Excise-commissioners found to contain but 
224 inches. This Guildhall gallon was therefore 
most probably made under the former statute of 
1495, and thus may have contributed to those errors 
which, more flagrant in the larger measures, induced 
in 1496 the recall of the latter. Why it was not 
recalled itself, can now only be conjectured. 

The terms of the law of 1495, indicate how the 
gallon of 224 inches grew out of the old gallon of 
216 inches. By that law, the sack of wool was to be 
26 stone, and the stone, 14 pounds; so that the sack 
weighed 364 pounds. By the old laws of the land, 
the sack was to weigh but 350 pounds. These two 
different weights are, as I before observed, in the 
proportion of the Saxon commercial pound (of 6750 
grains) and the Roman avoirdupois pound (of 7000 
grains); and this proportion inversely is almost exactly 
that of the gallons of 224 and 216 inches. The artists 
of Henry VII must have weighed by the avoirdupois 
pound instead of the old easterling 15 ounces. Such 
a wine-gallon, raised by the constant proportion 


NEW RATIO BETWEEN WINE AND WHEAT. 125 

which I have given before as maintained between 
the gravities of wine and wheat, would give a corn- 
gallon of 275.625 inches and a bushel of 2205 
inches: if the ratio of 350 to 364 were used, it 
would give a corn-gallon of 276.41 and a bushel of 
2211.28 inches;—neither of them very materially 
differing from the Exchequer gallon of Henry VII, 
of 272, and the bushel of the same monarch, of 
2224 inches. 

These last standards, however, w r ere most likely 
made under the following Act of 1496. As they had 
used avoirdupois weight in the construction of the 
wine-gallon of 224 inches, and as the law now re¬ 
quired troy weight to be employed for the wheat 
pounds, we may date here the dereliction and final 
loss of the old ratio of weight between wine and 
wheat (viz: as 144 to 177.1875) and the adoption of 
a new one, the ratio between troy and avoirdupois, 
viz: as 144 to 175. Using this last ratio, the corn- 
gallon corresponding to the wine-gallon of 224 
inches would be 272.22 inches; almost identical 
with the gallon of Henry VII. A gallon of 272.25 
inches is the one used by Arbuthnot in his Tables; 
and, forty years ago, was actually legalized by act of 
Parliament. 

But this gallon would make a bushel of 2177.78 
cubic inches; which corresponds with no existing 
standard, and is very far from the Winchester bushel, 
copied by Henry VII and accepted long before the 


126 WINE-GALLON OF 230.4 CUBIC INCHES. 

accession of the House of Hanover. If then in the 
time of George III ; such discrepancies could be ad¬ 
mitted, we are authorized to tolerate their occur¬ 
rence in that of Henry VII and to trace his bushel of 
2224 inches from a wine-gallon of 230.4 inches, by 
the same proportion of troy and avoirdupois weights. 

Troy weight was, we know, one-fifteenth heavier 
than the old sterling weight; and equivalent volumes 
weighed by the former must be sixteen-fifteenths of 
those weighed by the latter. Thus a volume of 216 
cubic inches, weighed in old sterling, and a volume 
of 230.4 inches, weighed in troy, will shew the same 
weight in the different denominations. A wine- 
gallon of this last content, raised by the wine and 
wheat proportion of the old laws of the land, gives a 
corn-gallon of 283.5 and a bushel of 2268 cubic 
inches; raised in the new proportion of troy to 
avoirdupois, its corn-gallon is 280 and its bushel 
2240 inches. This last was the aim nearly attained 
by the large bushel of Henry VII; and the gallon of 
280 inches was exactly reproduced by the standard 
of 1601 in the Exchequer. The small bushel of 
Henry VII of 2124 inches, was a copy from and 
identical with the old Rufus bushel; and his Win¬ 
chester bushel of 2145.6, intended for the Irish 
bushel of 2142 cubic inches. 

That the phrase in the law of 1496—“the measure 
of the bushel”—should be interpreted, like some 
have done, as if the English law-makers of that 


CAUSE OF ERROR UNDER THE STATUTE OF 1496. 127 

epoch forgot or misunderstood the idea of equipon- 
derance to which their people had been habituated 
for nearly a thousand years, and meant to substitute 
measure for weight, hardly follows, even grammati¬ 
cally : it is disproved in fact, by the existence of the 
corn-gallon of 272 inches, which cannot be made out 
otherwise than by w r eight. Computed by measure 
alone, the wine and corn-gallons would have been of 
the same capacity, viz: 224 or 230.4 cubic inches, 
and the bushel of 1792 or 1843.2 inches; a shocking 
violation of the habits of the people, which did not 
need to have been inflicted in forty-three different 
places before it made itself felt, but would have re¬ 
acted, before the standards that exemplified it had 
left the purlieus of the Tower. The legislators of 
1496, to be sure, did not appreciate the symmetry of 
their early system, or they never would have en¬ 
grafted, without a salvo, troy weight upon sterling; 
and those who executed their laws may have appre¬ 
ciated it as little and understood it less, or they never 
would have made three different bushels (and so 
different) in the search after uniformity: but neither 
were so steeped in error as to presume and to act 
upon the presumption, that wine and wheat were of 
the same weight. Finally, the phrase of the law of 
1496 is, as far as possible, and its numerical quanti¬ 
ties exactly, the same with the old laws which it 
was intended to renovate. The radical mistake, 
only, was what had originated two centuries before 


128 CAPACITY-MEASURES OF ELIZABETH. 

under the first Norman Edward, had been going on 
ever since, and reached its climax in height though 
not all its developement in extent and variety, now. 
This was the non-conformity between weights and 
coin: and this made the old laws speak a language 
hard to be understood, because the things were no 
longer existing which their words expressed. 

From this time, the end of the fifteenth century, 
until the beginning of the seventeenth century, no 
new standards appear to have been made by any 
public authority; the capacity-measures of Elizabeth, 
like the linear ones, replace those of Henry VII. 
The law of 1496 did not expressly mention any 
gallon for wine: but I have already shewn how the 
habitual popular interpretation must have demanded 
one, and how it came in the immediate execution of 
that law to be 224 cubic inches, and in subsequent 
theory to be 230.4 inches. This last value gave rise 
to some of the standards of 1601. Of this date, 
there are gallons of 270.4 and 271 inches; a quart 
and pint belonging to gallons of 280 and 278.4 
inches, respectively; and a bushel of 2128.9 cubic 
inches. The gallons were copies of the Henry VII 
corn-gallon; and the bushel, of the same Prince’s 
small one of 2124 inches, which was itself identical 
with the most ancient standard. The quart and pint 
were made upon the gallon for wine of 230.4 inches, 
augmented in the proportion of 5760 to 7000 for the 
corn-gallon. Such an augmentation gives a content 
of exactly 280 inches. 


VARIOUS RATIOS FOR TROY AND AVOIRDUPOIS. 129 

This wine-gallon of 230.4 inches was never posi¬ 
tively executed; it existed only as an arithmetical de¬ 
duction from the number of inches in the eighth part 
of a cubic foot, and therefore might very well for ease 
of remembrance be taken in round numbers as 231 
inches. In point of fact, the round number is ex¬ 
actly divisible by 7; and a cylinder of 7 inches in 
diameter and 6 inches in height, is almost exact in 
the content. Such was the guage actually adopted 
about a century later, when the gallon itself was 
made the subject of a statute. I may remark here, 
that it was the estimate of 231 inches for the wine- 
gallon and the positive corn-gallon of 280 inches, 
which produced the ratio of 14 to 17, for a long time 
accepted between the troy and avoirdupois weights. 
The comparison of other standards afterwards, (about 
a century ago) modified this into a proportion of 14 
to 17.5, and at length into 144 to 175 identical with 
5760 to 7000 grains. 

That the count of 231 inches was current before 
the time of the Elizabethan standards, is indirectly 
proved by a statute of the same reign (13 Eliz. a. d. 
1570) relating to the herring-fishery. It appears 
that informations had been laid against the herring- 
barrels, which had been usually guaged and allowed in 
London at 32 gallons wine-measure, for not contain¬ 
ing 32 gallons corn, or rather a/e-measure; and this 
information was founded, 1°. upon there being no 
wine-gallon in the Exchequer, the depository of the 
18 


130 


WINE-GALLON OF 231 INCHES. 


legal standards, but (as I said before) only corn-gal¬ 
lons; 2°. upon a statute of Henry VIII, five and 
thirty years before, which required the coopers to 
make barrels for ale to contain 32 gallons, corn-mea¬ 
sure; and 3°. upon “the extremity of old statutes in 
words by some men’s construction,” as the Act itself 
expresses it, coupled with an indignant denial. To 
quash these informations and preserve the herring- 
fishery from disturbance, the Act summarily de¬ 
clares, that “thirty-two gallons wine-measure, which 
is about twenty-eight gallons by old standard , shall 
be the lawful assize of herring-barrels, any old sta¬ 
tute to the contrary notwithstanding.” The ratio of 
32 to 28 is very nearly that of the corn-gallon, de¬ 
rived from the sub-octave of the cubic foot, and 
exhibited in the Rumford standards of the Exche¬ 
quer, to a gallon of 231 inches: so that the old stan¬ 
dard of the law must have been these Rumford mea¬ 
sures, and the habitual wine-measure must have been 
recognized at 231 inches. The old statute referred 
to, was doubtless the earliest Assise for weights and 
measures of 1266 (so-called); whose details I have 
already given. 

We may see here a fresh developement of the 
misunderstanding of the Saxon system of measures, 
that was exhibited by the act of 1496: a misunder¬ 
standing which, although plain enough to us now, 
the phrase of the Assise of 1266 and the singular 
symmetry and correlation of its terms contributed to 


EXCISE ENQUIRY. 


131 


foster. When that Assise says that“ eight gallons of 
wine make the London bushel,” the legislators under 
Elizabeth seem to have read it as if by volume, not 
by weight; the gallon of wine and the gallon for 
wine, they held as synonymous; and as they found 
no other ancient gallon in the Exchequer but the 
Rumford measure, which was in volume the eighth 
part of the bushel of William Rufus, they naturally 
concluded that to be the old standard and termed it 
so accordingly. How or why there should be a 
newer smaller standard for wine, they do not, at this 
session at least, appear to have known: had they 
known, the occasion was every way proper for the 
exposition. 

It is clear that the knowledge on the subject did 
not increase during the following century. For all 
that time, no actual standards had been made; and 
several statutes that were enacted, confined them¬ 
selves to the enforcement of the measures already 
existing. One of 22 Car. II; a. d. 1670, prescribing 
by name the Winchester bushel of the Exchequer, I 
have already referred to. In 1688, the Excise-com¬ 
missioners desired to learn why there was one gallon 
for wine and another for beer; and it was upon this 
enquiry that the Guildhall gallon was guaged to con¬ 
tain 224 inches, which, although there was reported 
to have been an Exchequer gallon of 231 inches, 
they found reason to conclude was the true wine- 
gallon. Three gallons in the Exchequer (one of 


132 WINCHESTER BUSHEL OF WILLIAM III. 

Henry VII, and two of Elizabeth) were found to 
contain 272 inches. Other standards, which I have 
already mentioned and which were measured upon a 
later and more exact inquiry, do not appear to have 
been examined. As beer and ale were liquids as 
well as wine, and as the excise-revenue would be 
augmented by taxing on a smaller gallon, they pro¬ 
posed to adopt the Guildhall measure throughout. 
But difficulties being of course made by those who 
had to pay the duties, and the opinion of the attor¬ 
ney-general being solicited in the matter, that officer, 
after an examination of the statutes, said: that he did 
not know how the 231 inches came to be taken up, 
inasmuch as there was no positive standard of that 
size; that the smaller gallon at Guildhall would not 
be maintained as a legal standard by the courts; that 
the larger gallons of 272 inches, if adopted through¬ 
out, would cause a vast loss to the revenue; and 
finally that it was safer to adhere to the usage. This 
opinion terminated the question for the time. 

In 1696, under William III, an act of Parliament 
declared, that “ every round bushel with a plain and 
even bottom, being 18.5 inches wide throughout and 
8 inches deep, shall be esteemed a legal Winchester 
bushel according to the standard in His Majesty’s 
Exchequer.” The actual Winchester bushel in the 
Exchequer had been found at this time to contain 
2145.6 inches: and the dimensions adopted in the 
statute were intended to come as nearly as possible 


SUBSTITUTION OF VOLUME FOR WEIGHT. 133 

to that capacity, without resorting to small fractions. 
It was therefore, like the count of 231 inches for the 
wine-gallon, a compromise for convenience. But it 
destroyed both the symmetry and the principle of 
dry measures, in introducing a new and arbitrary 
method of computation by cubic inches instead of 
pounds. The same method was very shortly after 
applied also to the liquid measures. 

This was the more to be regretted, because they 
were at this time upon the verge of discovering the 
proportions and reasonableness of their earlier stan¬ 
dards; they had indeed the key in their hand al¬ 
ready. The Oxford experiment in 1685, which I 
have referred to in the table just now, had made a 
cubic foot of pump-water to weigh 1000 ounces 
avoirdupois; and the trial in 1696, which I have 
also quoted in the same place, shewed the Winches¬ 
ter bushel of wheat to weigh 1000 ounces avoirdu¬ 
pois, too. The ratio from this last gives almost iden¬ 
tically the same factor for wine and wheat weights, 
wdiich is furnished by the old Assise of the tun; and 
had they gone on to guage the Rumford measures 
and the Irish gallon, they would have found at every 
step most satisfactory coincidences with the ancient 
laws that Sir Thomas Powis had in vain otherwise 
tried to reconcile. But having long lost all coinci¬ 
dence in their coin, (for although the English money 
was still called sterling , it bore no relation to the eas- 
terling pound) they lacked encouragement in the 


134 


REPUTED ALE-GALLON OF 282 INCHES. 


very first step; they took the gallon of wine to be a 
phrase as antiquated and vague as the penny ster¬ 
ling; and this novel and accidental coincidence be¬ 
tween the cubic foot of water and an inaccurate 
bushel of wheat, drove them still farther astray. All 
the speculations of the period laboured to explain; by 
the avoirdupois weight of water ; a system which 
was founded upon the easterling weight of wine. 

In 1700; occurred a new case for inquiry in which 
the attorney-general again figured; but not more 
successfully now in the forum than before in his 
chamber. A merchant had paid duties on sixty 
butts of Alicant wine at the rate of 126 gallons the 
butt; but the guaging had been by the reputed capa¬ 
city for the ale-gallon of 282 inches; instead of the 
actual Guildhall wine-gallon of 224 or the reputed 
wine-gallon of 231 inches. I call this the reputed 
capacity; because although the positive standard at 
the Treasury was admitted by both parties to contain 
282 inches; and such was very likely its accurate 
content; yet such a capacity had not been intended 
when the standard was made; nor does it conform to 
any possible theoretical aim. When made for the 
Treasury or removed there from the Exchequer; 
either it was copied from the gallon of 280 inches of 
1601; or from the large gallon of Henry VII; which 
should have been of 283.5 inches; or it was founded 
upon the ^ V01 ^* p — ratio; multiplied into the reputed 
wine-gallon of 231 inches. Such a ratio and mul- 



THE ALICANT CASE. 


135 


tiplication would give dimensions of 280.73 inches. 
Or, finally, it may have been intended to have been 
made as much larger than the earliest Rumford mea¬ 
sures as the admitted wine-gallon of 231 inches was 
larger than the Irish gallon; which, both being of 
remote antiquity, were very properly suspected to 
be somehow connected together. This computation 
gives a content of 281.85 inches. However derived, 
the round numbers must have been, like the wine- 
gallon itself and the Winchester bushel, a compro¬ 
mise for the convenience of linear guaging. 

When the case was tried, the Crown proved: 1°. 
that by the old Assise of the tun and subsequent sta¬ 
tutes, the butt ought to contain 126 gallons; 2°. that 
by agreement of all the guagers, a wine-gallon was of 
231 inches,—which content they all ascribed to the 
Guildhall gallon, though it does not appear to have 
been re-measured since 1688; 3°. that the Exche¬ 
quer gallons of 272 inches were for corn only, and 
the Treasury gallon of 282, specially for beer and ale. 
The defendant, Barker, proved: 1°. that the 126 
gallons of the old Assise referred to Bourdeaux wine, 
and that as far back as 1327, at least, a statute of 
Richard III admitted the Spanish wines in butts of 
140 gallons; 2°. that by the agreement of all the 
dealers, his butts were of the size that had been ha¬ 
bitual as long as any one could recollect; 3°. that by 
the standard kept at the Treasury, as the law re¬ 
quired, he had paid the duty, and that with the dis- 


136 


COAL BUSHEL OF QUEEN ANNE. 


tinctions of wine, corn, and ale gallons, he had no 
concern. Upon this, the suit was given up: but the 
advice of the attorney-general that Parliament should 
remedy the matter, was followed; and shortly after 
was passed the statute of 6 Anne (a. d. 1706) by 
which the gallon for wine was fixed (following the 
example of the Winchester bushel) by declaring it 
to be any uniform cylinder of 7 inches diameter 
and 6 inches high, or any vessel containing 231 
cubic inches and no more. I have not room here 
to do more than notice a curious coincidence between 
this determination and what was made for the so- 
called congius of Vespasian, the Roman wine-unit. 
The proportion between of the Roman cubic foot 
and Vespasian’s measure, is almost exactly as 216 to 
231, or as J of the English cubic foot to the wine 
measure of Queen Anne. By what destiny is it 
that, with nations more than 1600 years apart, there 
should be this close numerical accord? 

A few years after, a statute of 13 Anne legal¬ 
ized the habitual coal-bushel to be of the contents 
of a Winchester bushel of William III and a quart; 
cubically, therefore, it would be 2217.62 inches, 
struck. The phrase of the law, which requires 19.5 
inches in diameter from outside to outside , had refer¬ 
ence to the base of the cone upon which the heap 
was to be made; for coal was always sold by heaped 
measure. In practice they had besides a contrivance 
for making a conical strike. 


CAPACITY-MEASURES IN 1768. 


137 


From this time until the Committee of 1758, there 
appears to have been no important movement made 
in regard to the standards. I have already spoken 
of the labors of this Committee and their late suc¬ 
cess, with reference to the length-measures and 
weights: in the capacity-measures, they were even 
more industrious but less fortunate. Fifty folio pages 
of research and speculation attest the interest with 
which they viewed their subject; and a guaging of 
the old standards in the Exchequer, elaborate and 
reliable (for it was made by Bird,) have furnished 
the numerical data to all succeeding inquirers. But 
their very success in the others, was prejudicial to 
this part of their examination; the old sterling 
weights were hidden from them behind the larger 
troy and avoirdupois, which they found accordant 
and pervading; and finally, hearing in the old sta¬ 
tutes and the new, the perpetual refrein of one weight 
and one measure throughout this realm , they could 
not, any more than Sir Thomas Powis, comprehend 
how such oneness could co-exist with two different 
measures called by the same name. Had the half¬ 
peck never been named the gallon, their difficulty 
must have vanished. 

Although, therefore, the proportions of 231 and 
282 in the wine and ale-gallons confirmed their fa¬ 
vorite troy and avoirdupois, they proposed to do 
away with the former entirely and thus realize the 
aspirations after one measure: they would have pre- 
19 


138 COMMITTEES OF 1790 AND 1816. 

ferred a gallon of 280 inches, as resting both upon a 
more accurate and convenient arithmetic and upon a 
more ancient and legal precedent. But this last 
would have required a new establishment of guaging 
apparatus for the Customs; the Alicant case, which I 
have just detailed, came to their assistance to prove 
that the guage by 282 inches, in legal use for domes¬ 
tic fermented liquors, was also a measure for Spanish 
wines; neither of the three, separately or together, 
remained in any useful connection with the bushel, 
the unit of dry measure; and the Committee there¬ 
fore recommended the adoption of the gallon of 282 
inches as the unit of all liquid measure. They do 
not appear to have reported any model of this stan¬ 
dard, as they did of the yard and troy pound (and as 
we read in some of the histories of England, they 
did of all) to Parliament. 

Of the immediate event of their recommendations, 
I have already spoken; as well as of the less marked 
labors of a Committee in 1790, which followed upon 
the invitation of the French government in that year, 
for England to join in the enterprise of an universal 
uniformity of weights and measures. It was not 
until 1814, that the question was again taken up and, 
upon the return of a general peace in 1816, reported 
to Parliament by a Commons 5 Committee. I have 
designedly left this proceeding to be spoken of here; 
because as regards the positive measures of length 
and the weights, they were hardly the subject of dis- 


WOLLASTON AND PLAYFAIR. 


139 


cussion. The yard of 36 inches, they thought, 
should be compared with the pendulum or perhaps 
an arc of the meridian, or both, with a view to its 
permanency: and there was a vague proposition, 
which I have found in the testimony taken about 
that time, to alter the avoirdupois weight so that the 
ounce in that system should be really tt>W of the 
cubic foot of water; as it had, ever since the Oxford 
experiment, been counted to be. The Committee 
proposed to attain the same result, by altering the 
standard temperature of the water from 60° or 62° 
to 56°.5 F. 

Their most important suggestions, however, re¬ 
lated to the capacity-measures. Like their predeces¬ 
sors in 1758, they thought there should be but one 
measure; and they proposed its ascertainment by the 
weight of distilled water it might contain. The 
weight they recommended, 80 lb. for the bushel at 
56°.5 F. which gave the gallon 10 lb. and the quart 
40 ounces avoirdupois, and made the half-pint ex¬ 
actly Tihr of the cubic foot—seems to have originated 
with Dr. Wollaston; and the controlling reason ap¬ 
pears to have been, “the advantage of making the 
subordinate measures in integers. 55 Another emi¬ 
nent philosopher, (Professor Playfair) testifying to 
the Committee, thought “it would be better to take 
the bushel at 2160 inches; because it differs but little 
from K. William 5 s Winchester bushel, and because 
it is in the simple proportion to the cubic foot of 


140 SAME UNIT FOR LIQUID AND DRY MEASURE. 

5 to 4;” but he did not seem to be aware that this 
was in fact the earliest English measure, nor did 
either of the savans hint to the Committee that they 
were in substance going back to the old Roman 
quadrantal. 

Such were the influential recommendations which 
came before the scientific Commissioners appointed 
by the Government in 1818. Of the results of their 
investigation touching the other measures, I have 
already made mention; as to the capacity-measures, 
they adopted the general principles which one of 
their number, Wollaston, had already indicated in 
1816. A more exact experiment led them to mod¬ 
ify some of the details; as, for instance, the tempera¬ 
ture and, along with that, the positive cubic capaci¬ 
ties. They reported that “the gallon measure 
should in future be that which contains 10 lb. avoir¬ 
dupois of water in ordinary circumstances (that is to 
say the temperature of the water being 62° of Fah¬ 
renheit’s thermometer, and the barometer 30 inches); 
and that eight such gallons should be a bushel.” 

I shall not speculate upon the process of thought 
by which the Commissioners arrived at these propor¬ 
tions ; they did not find fit fully to exhibit its train 
themselves. It is sufficient to say, that the conclu¬ 
sions of their third and final report made in March 
1821, were accepted and affirmed by a select Com¬ 
mittee of the Lords about two months afterwards; 
and that at length, an Act of 5 Geo. IV, in 1824 (to 


IMPERIAL STANDARD GALLON. 141 

take effect from 1 January 1826, by a subsequent 
Act,) legalized these proportions, and declared this 
gallon so defined, under the name of the Imperial 
Standard Gallon, to be “ the unit and only standard 
measure of capacity.” The Act, however, qualifies 
this to a certain extent, by saying that it is to be ap¬ 
plied to liquids and unheaped dry articles; articles ha¬ 
bitually sold by heaped measure (coal, potatoes, etc.) 
were to be measured by the bushel of 80 lb., or of 8 
such gallons, with a cone of 6 inches in height, and a 
diameter of base from outside to outside of 19.5 
inches, as in Queen Anne’s coal-bushel. 

Expressed cubically, according to the weight of 
water as ascertained by the Commissioners, the gallon 
would contain 277.274 inches very nearly; and the 
bushel, 2218.19075 inches. These dimensions re¬ 
main unaltered, so far as I am aware, to this day; 
though there have been several succeeding laws, re¬ 
stricting or enforcing the terms of the first one, as 
for instance the Act 4 and 5 William IV, which abol¬ 
ishes heaped measure. But as from this point our 
standards and those of Great Britain diverge, it is not 
necessary to pursue their history any later. I shall 
close now what I have thought necessary to be said, 
by presenting in one page a view of the English 
capacity-measures in their several successive phases, 
together with the probable analogies which led to 
their occurrence. 


142 


CHRONOLOGICAL EXPOSITION 


Table shewing the Values in English cubic Inches of the English Liquid and Dry 


1 

Wine 

Measure. 

Corn Measure. 

DATE. 

A. D. 

GALLON IN 

THEORY. 

ACTUAL GALLON. 

BUSHEL IN 

THEORY. 

ACTUAL BUSHEL. 

Ante 1000 

216. 

• • 

2160. 

• * • • 

1000 — 1266 

216. 

217.6 Irish 
gallon. 

2126.25 

2124 Wm. Rufus, of 1091 
2124 Hen. VII, no rim, 1496 
2128.9 Elizabeth of 1601 

1266 — 1491 

217.6 

217.6 do. 

2142. 

2145.6 Winchester bushel; 

copy for Hen. VII 
2150.42 do.; Wm. Ill, 1696 

1491 —1496 

• 

• 

• • • 

• • • • 

1496—1705 

224. 

224 Guildhall 

2205. 

2224 Hen. VII, rim, 1496 


1705—1822 


gallon. 


224. 224 


do. 2177.78 


2217.62 Coal-bushel of Q. 

Anne, 1712 
2178 Bush, of Geo. Ill, 1805 


230.4 


230.4 

231. 

231. 


231 by 5 Anne, 
1705. 

231 Exchequ’r 
gall. 1688? 
231 do. 

231 do. 
231.2Excheq’r 
gallon, 1707. 


2240. 2224 Henry VII ? 


2268. 

2245.83 


2150.42 for Corn 
2217.62 for Coal 


1822 — 1845 277.274 277.3 Imperial 2218.19 2218.19 Imperial bushel 

gallon. 














OF ENGLISH CAPACITY-MEASURES. 


143 


Capacity-Measures at different Epochs; and the probable Formulae of their Variations. 


Corn Measure. 


CORN-GALLON = 1-8 OF THE VOLUME 

OF THE BUSHEL. 

formula;. 

THEORY 

| ACTUAL. 


270. 

* # * * 

Wine-gallon = Cubic f00t 8 a728 \ 

Bushel = 1728 • jf. 

Earliest Saxon Epoch. 

265.78 

266.25 Rumf’d gall, of 1228 
264.80 Rumford qt. of 1228 

Bushel = 1728--ff-1|. 

Epoch of the Rumford measures. 

267.75 


Wine gallon, = f • f f = 217.5227. 

Bushel = 8-217.6-If. 

Epoch of the Winchester measures. 



Transition Period. 


275.625 272 Henry VII, 1496 ? Wine gallon = 216 • ffff 

Bushel = 8 • 224 * f f * f f 


272.22 272 Henry VII, 1496 

271 Elizabeth, 1601 EE. 

270.4 do. do. E. 
272.25 Geo. II r, 1805 

280. 282 Gallon, supposed of 

Henry VII 

280 Eliz. quart of 1601 

278.4 do. pints 1601—2 

283.5 282 Treasury Ale-gallon ? 

280.73 282 do. do. 1688 

282. 282 for Ale 


277.274 277.274 Imperial gallon. 


Bushel = 8 • 224 • 

Troy and avoirdupois together. 


Wine gallon = 216 • {£. 
Bushel = 8 • 230.4 • £f||. 


Bushel = 8 • 230.4 • jf • f f 

Bushel = 8-231-Iflf 

Period of Confusion. Standards all in¬ 
dependent. Ale-gallon copied from 
Henry VIPs bushel combined with 
the Irish gallon, thus 

f||^ = 281.85? 

Uniformity of Proportion abolished. 
Capacity determined by weight of 
distilled water at 62° F. 30 B. 










144 UNIFORMITY OF THE SAXON SYSTEM. 

I have been thus copious upon the subject of the 
English capacity-measures, because of its intrinsic in¬ 
terest and the acknowledged extrinsic difficulties be¬ 
setting it. When I read, in the latest Legislative 
report upon it, such passages as this : that “ the gal¬ 
lon of England was originally identical for all uses, 
and that variations have arisen, in some cases from 
accident, in others from fraud,” or this: that “the 
wine-gallon is supposed to have gone on shrinking, 
until its progress was arrested by a fiscal definition at 
231 inches,” and saw, how then these last explorers 
threw away their torches in despair,—I could not but 
be irresistibly attracted to ruins, which are inscribed in 
dignified and now venerable statutes as having once 
contained wisdom-treasure ‘of old time, 5 and in 
which I think I find the traces of the most beautiful 
and uniform system that ever regulated commerce 
between man and man. As far as I am aware, these 
traces have been indicated but by one, before. Far 
behind him in all the gifts and accomplishments re¬ 
quired for such research, I have had but one advan¬ 
tage, (and I have not knowingly neglected it) that 
of leisure for patient detail, which varied pursuits 
and continual public services denied to him. 

In calling the Saxon system just now, uniform , I 
did so intentionally and upon reflection. The term, 
uniformity, can only be predicated of an assemblage 
of elements or individuals; a single individual, un¬ 
contrasted, has nothing to be uniform with. A unit, 


UNITARY AND UNIFORM SYSTEMS. 145 

in Weight or Measure, may be repeated or multi¬ 
plied or sub-divided in different parts of the system; 
and such repetitions are to be called identical , and 
the system itself unitary; but as long as our language 
remains true to its radicals, it can hardly be said to be 
uniform . Besides this, there is another consideration 
necessary to complete the idea of uniformity in this 
regard; and this is the correspondence between the 
weights or measures (which are but the indices or 
representatives for articles of commerce, grown or 
manufactured,) and the articles themselves, so indi¬ 
cated or represented. In both these aspects the early 
English system, prior to the fourteenth century, is 
more fully uniform than any modern establishment. 
By it, the properties of numbers, extension, gravity, 
and content, all conspired to one result; and, where- 
ever applied, reached their results in one way. An 
arithmetical harmony governed in the sub-division of 
linear measures, and fixed the number of pounds to 
the gallon of wine as well as the number of grains in 
the bushel of wheat; linear extension, defined on a 
positive standard, measured the content of the gallon 
and weighed (as it were, in the balance of the sea) 
the ton; between gravity and content, no more terse 
and suggestive description of uniformity could be 
devised than the phrase of the Great Charter which 
says: ‘of weights it shall be as of measures; ? and 
finally, there can be no fuller correspondence be¬ 
tween an index and the things indicated, than was 
20 


146 PRESENT METROLOGIES OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND, 

manifested while the respective measures of liquid 
and dry substances reciprocally served to weigh each 
other, and the coins, the necessary implements of 
commerce, weighed both. In this system, uniformity 
not only co-existed with, but existed because of the 
several unitary elements of which it was composed. 

If modern establishments lay claim to a similar or 
paramount uniformity, it must be upon the same 
principle: but a calm examination might show, I 
think, that this has not always been attended to; and 
that people, as Mr. Adams has already remarked, 
have sometimes taken uniformity to be nothing else 
but identity. For such an examination, there is here 
no occasion; and I shall, therefore, not stop to con¬ 
trast the Weight and Measure system which we have 
been contemplating, with (for instance) the newer me¬ 
trology of France,—where occur two different units, 
neither derived from nor in any physical correspon¬ 
dence with commercial substances, and where the 
principal uniformity is in the harmony of decimal 
progression; nor again with the present establish¬ 
ment of Great Britain,—where there are also two 
units, and one of them entirely local and not in the 
present state of science perfectly referable any where 
else,—where articles, so dissimilar as wine and wheat, 
coal and potatoes, are rated by one measure and that 
not founded upon the weight of any one of them, but 
upon the space occupied by an even (but neither a 
square nor a cubic) number of pounds of water. I 


PROVINCIAL STANDARDS IN AMERICA. 147 

shall rather proceed to a brief account of the steps 
which led to the establishment of our own system. 

The commercial dependence of the American 
provinces upon Great Britain, notwithstanding the 
actual differences in colonial origin of some of them, 
would naturally tend to a sort of identity with the 
English standards of Weight and Measure. We 
have already seen what was the case in Maryland; 
and in point of fact, at the establishment of the Amer¬ 
ican Confederacy, all of the thirteen States had le¬ 
galized the measures of England. Five of them had 
named the Winchester measures in their laws; of the 
rest, all but one had, under the epithets Exchequer 
or London , accepted either the Winchester bushel 
or one, derived from a gallon of Henry VII, of 
2177.78 inches. The single exception was Connec¬ 
ticut, who had taken a gallon of 224 inches for wine 
and one of 282 inches for ale; this last was intended 
to be the eighth part in volume of the bushel. 

When the States became independent, a zeal for 
repudiating all old connections possibly augmented 
the stimulus which at the time, as I have already said, 
was pervading many parts of the civilized world, 
towards the research after uniformity and an absolute 
indelible measure. At all events as early as August 
1785, the Board of Treasury was directed to “re¬ 
port an ordinance fixing the standards of Weight 
and Measure throughout the United States.” But 


148 


STANDARDS FOR THE UNION. 


the still revolutionary character of the period and a 
coming crisis plainly marked, were unpropitious to 
any immediate result; and, at the adoption of the 
present Constitution, the matter stood as it had done 
for years before. 

The second session of the First Congress under 
the Union was held in New York, on 4 Jan. 1790; 
and five days afterwards. President Washington 
in his speech, called the attention of the Legisla¬ 
ture particularly to the subject. A suitable reply, 
promising c early attention/ was made in the Senate; 
and in the House of Representatives, an order was 
passed calling upon the Secretary of State (then Mr. 
Jefferson) to prepare and report a proper plan or 
plans for establishing uniformity in the currency, 
weights, and measures of the United States. Six 
months later, the report was received by the House 
where the call had originated; and it was communi¬ 
cated to the Senate on 23 Dec. of the same year, 
after a fresh special invocation by the President’s 
address upon the subject of which it treated. 

This document was quite characteristic of the emi¬ 
nent person by whom it was prepared. An admirer 
of the French philosophy, he took as the basis of the 
new system what had been almost simultaneously 
proposed publicly to the National Assembly of 
France by Talleyrand; and in the earlier discussions 
with regard to which, Mr. Jefferson very probably 
himself assisted during his residence in Paris. This 


mr. Jefferson’s report and plans. 149 

basis was the second-pendulum, in the parallel of 45° 
N. latitude. But the report was made before Borda 
and his colleagues in France had shewn the inferior¬ 
ity, of what may be called a dynamical , to a statical 
standard; and the other pursuits of its author had 
not allowed him to attain sufficient acquaintance with 
practical science, to be entirely aware of the mechan¬ 
ical difficulties which the plan he proposed would 
have to encounter, or the uncertainties it must submit 
to. I believe that not many, at the time or since, 
have considered as a misfortune that neither of the 
propositions it contained was adopted. 

The report comprehended two distinct plans: 1°. 
to render uniform and stable the existing system,—by 
comparing and fixing the unit of length with the 
pendulum, to which also superficial measures would 
be referable,—by abolishing the distinction between 
liquid and dry capacity-measure and fixing the unit 
of the latter (now to become the unit for both) at 
some medium term likewise defined by the measure 
of length, viz: 1.25 cubic feet,—by retaining the 
more known denominations and proportions of the 
two systems of weight and referring them (reduced 
to one series) to a definite volume of some substance, 
viz: rain water, the specific gravity of which never 
changes,—and finally, by expressing the quantity of 
pure silver for the money unit in terms of the weight 
so defined : or 2°. to attain uniformity by new units, 
a decimal division, and a partially new nomenclature. 


150 


POSTPONEMENT IN 1791. 


These plans were called alternatives; they might 
have been termed opposites. 

It is not necessary, nor even proper, to enter here 
farther into the details of the tw’o propositions. The 
whole report may be regarded as an original docu- 
ment, of illustrious emanation and worthy to be con¬ 
sulted by the curious in such subjects. Even its most 
valuable suggestion, that of the reciprocity between 
weights and coin, I consider as in some sense original, 
too; for there is no evidence in any of its phrases, that 
such reciprocity was known at the time to have been 
anciently inherent in the old Saxon system, upon the 
debris of which our own was working. In other 
particulars, too, there appears to have been no super¬ 
fluous research into that early system; only some of 
the most palpable, modern, or accidental co-inciden¬ 
ces are indicated. The gallon for wine, of whatever 
calibre, is u altogether disregarded, as concerning 
principally the mercantile and wealthy;” and the 
wine-gallon of 231 inches, the habitual one in the 
country, is stated as resting cc on the authority of very 
long usage, before the 5th of Anne, the origin and 
foundation of which are unknown.” In January 
1791, a supplemental report corrected a slight arith¬ 
metical error which had been committed; and added 
some developements in regard to the superficial 
measures under the second plan. 

In the House of Representatives, I am not aware 
that any immediate order was taken; in the Senate 


CONGRESSIONAL SUBSTITUTES. 


151 


the report and postscript were referred to a Committee 
who, on 1 March 1791, reported in substance that, 
regard being had to the steps in progress both in 
France and England, a it would not be eligible at 
present to introduce any alteration in the measures 
and weights which are now used in the United 
States.’ 5 This report was adopted. 

The Second Congress met at Philadelphia, on 24 
Oct. 1791; and on the next day, received an em¬ 
phatic stimulus upon this subject in the address of 
General Washington. Accordingly, in carving 
out the business of the session, “ the fixing the stan¬ 
dard” was made the second in order among the topics 
to be treated by the Senate; and a Committee, raised 
for the purpose. The report of this Committee, 
made on 5 April 1792, was, as nearly as might be, a 
transcript of the second plan of Mr. Jefferson. Its 
consideration was postponed until the next session of 
Congress. 

At that next session, it was taken up; but the 
question between the new system it recommended 
and the existing one, was not easily settled and gave 
occasion to long debates and repeated postponements. 
Two substitutes having in view the conservation of 
the old system, (one of them identical with the first 
plan of Mr. Jefferson,) and a third, combining in an 
ingenious manner the existing units with a decimal 
sub-division and thus melting as it were the two 
propositions into one,—were successively discussed; 


152 STANDARDS OF FRANCE TRANSMITTED IN 1795. 

and, after a month, the whole matter was referred to 
a new committee. The report of this last, made on 
29 Jan. 1793, has eluded my search; but ten days 
after, the entire subject was formally postponed until 
the next session. 

Apparently the difficulties experienced in settle¬ 
ment, overcame the attractiveness of the subject; 
the first session of the Third Congress passed over 
without reference to it; and the only notice of it 
during a second session, was the transmission to the 
Senate, on 8 Jan. 1795, of a communication from 
the French Envoy, Fauchet, accompanying copies of 
the provisional standards according to the metrical 
system, which had been directed to the American 
Government by the Committee of public Safety. 
The Senate ordered the printing of the communica¬ 
tion, but took no farther action. 

In the House of Representatives, it served as a 
motive for a Committee to report both upon it and 
upon the plans which had been submitted by the 
Secretary of State five years before, and which hith¬ 
erto seem to have been left in courtesy to the charge 
of the Senate. On 12 April 1796, this Committee 
reported. They wisely confined themselves to the 
enunciation of only the most indisputable principles; 
and, by the aspect of their conclusions, rather in¬ 
creased the doubts both as to the elements of the 
question and the attainment of an advantageous re¬ 
sult from any change. They preferred the old units 


COMMITTEE-REPORT OF 1796. 153 

but, if possible, the decimal division; and they de¬ 
sired to do away with the objections to positive (or 
as the report terms them, assumed) standards, by a 
reference to some uniform principle in Nature, “if 
it can be made to appear that reference may be had 
to such a measure, with sufficient certainty of uni¬ 
formity in the result of different experiments, and 
without much time, trouble, or expense in making 
them.” By way of trial only, they proposed the 
following experiments to ascertain: 1°. the length of 
the second-pendulum in existing feet and inches; 
2°. the weight of the thousandth part of the cubic 
foot of water; and 3°. the respective weights of four 
different divisions, which they refer to, of the pound 
and ounce. Nothing actually followed these propo¬ 
sitions; and it is curious that cotemporaneously, a 
private gentleman in England, upon his own means, 
was undertaking and successfully achieving substan¬ 
tially the same research at which the American Con¬ 
gress, with all the 6clat of national effort, aimed and 
failed. 

The subject slumbered now, until the beginning of 
a new century. On 28 Feb. 1800, the Senate re¬ 
ferred to the Secretary of the Treasury (then Mr. 
Wolcott) “to prepare and report to this House a 
plan for establishing uniformity in the Weights and 
Measures of the United States.” Such a report 
was, I believe, never returned: from time to time 
occasional memorials and motions, as I have before 
21 


154 DECIMAL SYSTEM OP MR. MADISON. 

said ; were made to and in Congress; but the break¬ 
ing out of the war of 1812 repressed even these. 

Upon the return of peace, President Madison in 
his last Message of 3 Dec. 1816^ reminded Congress 
that no adequate provision had been made for the 
uniformity of Weights and Measures; and he cou¬ 
pled it with a recommendation of the decimal subdi¬ 
visions, which his predecessors had hitherto abstained 
from doing; and which seems to me to have been pre¬ 
cisely the chief obstacle to the admission of any re¬ 
formation. The decimal computation is no part of 
the inheritance of the Saxon Family. 

Three months later; 3 March 1817; a resolution 
reported by the Committee to whom this part of the 
Message had been given in charge; referred to the 
Secretary of State, (who was ; two days afterwards; 
Mr. J. Q. Adams) to prepare and report to the Sen¬ 
ate a statement relative to the existing standards in 
the States of the Union, as well as to what had been 
done in foreign countries towards the aim of uni¬ 
formity and what would be proper to be done here. 
A resolution of the same purport was afterwards; on 
14 Dec. 1819; adopted by the other House. Before 
these orders were complied with; (for the field 
which they authorized was large, and the points to 
be connected, distant) a Committee-report upon the 
subject was offered in the House of Representatives, 
collateral to what had been the main subject of in¬ 
quiry, viz: the propriety of altering the laws in 


COMMITTEE-REPORT OF 1819. 


155 


regard to domestic or foreign coins. It was on 25 
Jan. 1819, that this report was presented. Its con¬ 
clusions are, in its own words, “that little should be 
done; that standards conformed to those in most 
common use among us, should be accurately made 
and carefully preserved at the seat of Government; 
that correct models should be placed in different dis¬ 
tricts of the country; and that the proportions and 
relations between these, should be ascertained.” 

This report is a model of calmness and conserva¬ 
tism: too much learning had not confused, nor too 
wearied reflection led astray. It is easy to see, too, 
from its tone as well as that of the Senate-resolution 
just quoted, how the public mind was settling down 
in aversion to a violent change; what had been 
found hard of acceptance in 1790, among a people 
of less than four millions, was now, with a popula¬ 
tion not far short of ten millions, grown to be nearly 
impossible. 

At length, on 22 Feb. 1821, the report of the 
Secretary of State was communicated to the Senate. 
If the report of the former Secretary was charac¬ 
teristic of its author, this was equally so. A com¬ 
bination of acute perception, discriminating judg¬ 
ment, learning varied and rarely at fault, and bril¬ 
liant diction, renders it attractive beyond its destined 
■sphere. It answered the call and more. In general 
its conclusions were what might have been expected. 
It recommended two distinct things, capable of being 


156 


REPORT OF MR. ADAMS. 


carried on simultaneously or separately—one, tend¬ 
ing to present improvement,—the other, looking to 
future perfection. These were, 1°. “to fix the stan¬ 
dard with the partial uniformity of which it is sus¬ 
ceptible, for the present excluding all innovation; 
and 2°. to consult with foreign nations for the future 
and ultimate establishment of universal and perma¬ 
nent uniformity.” 

The first recommendation has been subsequently 
in substance realized: it is to be regretted that the 
second was, at a propitious moment, lost sight of. 
The report itself exercised a strong influence, in 
various ways, in bringing about the realization I have 
spoken of. Deprecating innovation on the ground of 
both principle and expediency, it attacks from a 
third position, technically; and it argues, from the 
literal phrase of the powers conceded to Congress, 
very fairly (though I doubt if the distinction was in 
the mind of the framers of the Constitution at the 
time) that an authority to “fix the standard” does 
not convey one to unfix: Congress could repair, but 
might not subvert—it might reform, but ought not to 
revolutionize. I believe, too, that most persons rose 
from the perusal of the document, better content 
with what we had, and disposed to find, in the apti¬ 
tude and fecundity once characteristic of the ancient 
system and capable of being in a degree restored, a 
compensation for the dazzling but cheerless same¬ 
ness imparted by a new metrology which, like that 


mu. lowndes’ report of i8 22 . 157 

of France, would plant the extremes of its primor¬ 
dial unit of length on either frozen Pole and test its 
unit of weight by a mass of hardly melting ice. 

Such appears to have been the effect upon the 
House of Representatives, if we may judge by a brief 
Committee-report upon this document, on 11 March 
1822, from the same pen which furnished the report 
of 1819 to the same body. The Committee thought 
“it scarcely necessary to do more than submit the 
resolutions 55 which were expedient to be passed at 
the time. They acquiesced in the view of simply 
rendering “uniform and stable, the Measures and 
Weights which we at present possess. 55 The troy 
pound, they considered as already virtually disused 
in the community; and they proposed to have but 
one unit of weight,—the avoirdupois pound,—of 
which, the habitual mint-grain should be the one- 
seven thousandth part. Contrary to the Secretary 5 s 
opinion, they desired the standard of length and 
weight to be made of platina; those of capacity, they 
supposed, would be best formed of copper or brass. 
Finally, they proposed a joint resolution by which 
copies were to be procured on platina, of the Exche¬ 
quer yard of Q. Elizabeth and of the English avoir¬ 
dupois pound in vacuo; and in any other material, at 
the discretion of the President, of the standard 
English wine-gallon and of the Winchester bushel. 
These when made, “if satisfactory to Congress, 
should be declared the standard yard, bushel, liquid- 


158 EXCHEQUER STANDARDS PROCURED. 

gallon and pound of the United States.” The Presi¬ 
dent was besides to have constructed, for distribution 
among the several States and Territories, models of 
these standards and of certain subdivisions for each, 
which are indicated in the resolution: and the system 
so published was to be left to the good sense and 
good feeling of the nation for acceptance, uninflu¬ 
enced by any sovereign requisition or special penal¬ 
ties. But Mr. Adams’ proposition for concert with 
foreign nations, was not mentioned; and as it came to 
be known shortly after, that Great Britain was about 
reforming her standards upon principles and elements 
in some regards the opposite of what would have 
found favor here,—partly for that reason and partly 
for some others wholly unconnected with the matter, 
the resolutions do not appear to have been pressed, 
and the whole question before Congress was for the 
present dropped. The steps which had been recent¬ 
ly taken were not lost, however; and though they 
did not reach to the fixing of the standard, they 
served to fix our ideas about it and became a point 
(Vappui , on which subsequent measures rested. 

Copies of the Exchequer-standards, of the classes 
recommended by the Committee, had been procured 
by the State Department before or about the time of 
the Secretary’s report: there was added to them 
subsequently, in 1822, a copy of the Elizabethan 
yard of 1601, not on platina but on brass. This 
turned out very well accordant, upon a subsequent 


UNIT OF WEIGHT SETTLED BY CONGRESS. 


159 


comparison with other standards; as did also the 
weights of the former invoice: but the wine-gallon 
was found to be of 235.4 inches instead of 231, the 
corn-gallon of 274.325 instead of 268.8, and the so- 
called Winchester bushel of 2124.1 instead of 2150.42 
cubic inches. It is easy to see, however, that these 
two last were not inaccuracies in the workmanship, 
but a mistake in the standard selected to be copied. 
They had taken the corn-gallon of George III and 
the small bushel of Henry VII, instead of the Win¬ 
chester bushel and its appropriate gallon. The coal- 
bushel of Q. Anne, which should have contained 
2217.62 inches, gave only 2211.26 inches. The 
other suggestions of the Committee, to employ such 
standards in the making of authentic models for dis¬ 
tribution, were not acted upon. 

In 1828, after the new British standards had been 
executed, a copy of the Imperial troy pound, made 
under direction of and standarded by Captain Kater, 
was procured for the Mint; and was declared by 
Congress, on 19 May 1828, to be “the Standard of 
Weight for the United States; the other weights to 
be according to their legal proportion to the same. 55 
This is, I believe, the only case of express legalization 
of any specific unit, as yet. Upon comparison shortly 
after, this pound was found to differ very materially 
(2.5 grains nearly) from an authentic and carefully 
made set of grain-weights of Troughton. Such a 
discrepancy created some surprise at the time, but is 


160 DETERIORATION IN THE ENGLISH MINT-WEIGHT. 

capable of receiving a very distinct explanation. The 
United States mint-pound was copied from and is 
identical with the troy pound of the Parliamentary 
committee of 1758. That Parliamentary pounds made 
(as I have said) under the direction of the Assay- 
master of the English mint, was identical with the 
mint-pound of the same era. But the former, after 
its construction, did not see the light again for forty 
years; while the latter was in habitual use for the 
same term, and gradually lost weight. The grains 
of Mr. Troughton were derived from the latter; 
evidently, because there was no other accessible au¬ 
thentic source. So when Sir George Shuckburgh, 
in 1798, compared the Parliamentary pound with 
Troughton’s grain-weights—he was in fact comparing 
the mint-pound of 1758 with the mint-pound of 1798, 
though the experiment was not received in that 
sense; and he found the last too small. The same 
result, of course, was shewn with the Troughton 
weights of Mr. Hassler, which were made not long 
after and were intended to be identical with those of 
Shuckburgh. The comparison of Dr. Moll of Utrecht, 
made about this time, shews the same thing; the ele¬ 
ments being reversed. He weighed two English 
mint-pounds of 1818, copied from the gradually di¬ 
minishing standard in use, against grain-weights 
made by the artist Robinson (who furnished the 
balances for the new English standards of 1824, and 
whose grains are therefore parts of the pound of 


POSSIBLE ERROR OF THE IMPERIAL STANDARDS. 161 


1758) and also against a copy of the 
imperial pound by the artist Bate, 
who had made the original. Finally, 
the English mint itself recognized the 
difference; and by a notice in July 
1833, indicated the deduction (of 1.5 
grains to the pound) to be made upon 
all monies coined prior to 1 Jan. 1826 
when, by the Act of 5 Geo. IV, the 
old weight was directed to be re¬ 
stored. For greater distinctness, I 
put all these different recognitions 
together in the table on the side. 

Taking, as I do, Troughton’s grain 
weights to represent the weights at 
the Mint about 1798, the line of dif¬ 
ferences shews the variations which 
have occurred there during about a 
century. In a popular sense, it shews 
a certain consistency; but scientifi¬ 
cally, it is not creditable to the arts 
applied. For after all the acknow¬ 
ledged deviations are allowed, there 
still remains a possible unappreciated 
error of 0.0624 grains, in every copy. 
It is curious that this is just the min¬ 
imum possible error which, as Schu¬ 
macher has shewn, still affects the 
Imperial standards of weight, in con- 
22 


I© ^ 

h© © 


PQ 





S oo 

a 

© j> r 




tc £ 

p s 

















1G2 


COMPARISONS OF MR. HASSLER. 


sequence of the omission to ascertain the specific gra¬ 
vity of the metal composing them; and this error 
may be still farther multiplied by the other omission 
to observe the barometric heights at the time of com¬ 
parison. I leave this subject, however, to be consi¬ 
dered more in detail hereafter. 

A resolution of the Senate, on 29 March 1830, 
directed the Secretary of the Treasury to cause a 
comparison to be made of the Weights and Measures 
used at the different Custom-houses; in view, I be¬ 
lieve, of allowing that Department to correct any 
variations which such a comparison might detect, 
and thus to introduce a desirable and long-sought 
uniformity at least in those transactions to which the 
Government was a party. Under this resolution, 
the Department engaged the late Mr. Hassler, a per¬ 
son singularly qualified in intellect and experience 
for the task, to make the necessary examination. In 
March 1831, the progress in it was communicated to 
the Senate by a Report from the Treasury: and the 
next year, two other Reports from the same Depart¬ 
ment, dated on 20 and 30 June 1832 respectively, 
covered an elaborate account, by Mr. Hassler, of the 
general results of the comparison and of the detailed 
methods for their ascertainment and verification. 

The terms employed as standards in this compari¬ 
son, were ample and authentic; many of them hav¬ 
ing been brought to this country on the previous 
selection of Mr. Hassler himself, either for himself 



STANDARDS IN IIASSLER’s COMPARISONS. 163 

or in behalf of the Survey of the Coast,—to procure 
the apparatus for which he had, in 1809, revisited 
Europe. Of the last kind, among the length-mea¬ 
sures was a scale of 82 inches divided to tenths, by 
Mr. Troughton, and in all regards (except length) a 
fac-simile of Sir George Shuckburgh’s scale; of the 
former—a scale likewise by Troughton, of 52 inches, 
having the distance 51.2 inches laid off by the same 
artist from the actual Shuckburgh scale, which thus 
connected the operation fully with the English de¬ 
terminations concerning the pendulum and yard— 
an original iron metre from the French Committee 
of Weights and Measures of 1799, and a toise of 
Canivet used in the French comparisons of 1791, 
which thus connected as well with the determinations 
of the arc of the meridian as with the older system 
of France. Of course, I do not mention various 
others, such as the standards in the State Depart¬ 
ment, all of more or less interest. For the weights, 
there was the mint-pound which had been legalized 
by Act of Congress as the Standard; and a set of 
grain-w T eights from to 10,000 grains, made origi¬ 
nally by Mr. Troughton for Mr. Hassler before 1805 
and re-verified by the same artist in 1814, which 
served to unite with the English system; and an 
original brass kilogramme of the Committee, which 
lent the assistance and guarantee of all the physical 
experiments that had been made for the establish¬ 
ments of the Weights of France. 


1G4 VARIATIONS IN THE CUSTOM-HOUSE MEASURES. 

The variations in the measures of length used by 
the Custom-houses, from the mean of 36 inches on 
Troughton’s 82-inch scale, were found to extend 
between 35.76 and 36.165 inches; presenting an 
extreme error of very nearly uV of the yard. The 
weights, which were all avoirdupois, varied from 
6830.95 to 7075.52 grains of the mint-pound; thus 
shewing a discrepancy of 244.57 grains, or of nearly 
its of the unitary weight. The liquid capacity-mea¬ 
sures gave for the wine-gallon (although its nominal 
value, almost universally, was 231 cubic inches) 
219.5 and 226.5 inches as the extremes; the smallest 
deviating 11.5 cubic inches or very nearly from 
the true unitary capacity. The bushel-measures,— 
the mean of more than fifty of which, guaged by 
Mr. Adams’ direction in 1820, had been shewn to 
be 2153 inches, or very little more than 2 inches 
over the Winchester bushel of William III,—ranged 
between 2056.29 and 2165.2 cubic inches; giving 
room for an error, likewise nearly A of the true 
capacity. 

Upon these results, which shewed reason enough 
for the interference of the Government, it was not 
difficult to adopt the principles that would in future 
reconcile them. The weight of the Mint was the 
already-settled standard in that regard; the scale of 
Troughton, sufficiently authenticated to afford the 
unit of length; and the desire, which has been 
shewn to have existed from the beginning, for pre- 



UNITS ADOPTED IN 1832. 


165 


serving the mean of the habitual measures of the 
country, was to be gratified by restoring to the units 
of liquid and dry capacity the dimensions expressed 
or implied in many of the Colonial and State Laws. 
Therefore the Secretary, in his Report of 20 June 
1832, expressing the opinion that “the Department 
has full authority to correct the evil—by causing 
authentic standards to be supplied to all the Custom¬ 
houses/ 5 announced in substance the adoption of 
the Troughton scale aforesaid, as the standard of all 
linear and cubic dimension; an avoirdupois pound 
raised from the unitary mint-pound in the proportion 
of 7000 to 5760, as the standard of commercial 
weight; and a wine-gallon of 231 and a Winchester 
bushel of 2150.42 cubic inches, as the standards for 
liquid and dry capacity, respectively. These last 
were understood to be determinable from the weight 
of distilled water they would contain (viz: 8.339 
and 77.6274 avoirdupois pounds, respectively) at the 
temperature of its maximum density, say 39°.8 of 
Fahrenheit’s thermometer; in this particular differ¬ 
ing from the English method, where the tempera¬ 
ture is taken at 62° of the same scale. In both, the 
barometer-stand is 30 inches. Mr. Hassler had 
wished to adopt the point of maximum density as a 
standard temperature of comparison, throughout; 
actually, however, it has been applied no farther 
than to the capacity-measures. It was understood 
also, that the material of which the standards should 


1GG FABRICATION COMMENCED IN 1836. 

be constructed, a condition evidently not without 
influence, would be brass. 

The same Report also announced that the fabrica¬ 
tion of the standards was actually in progress at the 
Arsenal in Washington. Diplomatically speaking „ 
such was the fact; practically, the matter had gone 
no farther than the opening of an extensive corres¬ 
pondence for supplying the requisite materials for the 
artistical part of the Establishment. Among other 
things, Mr. Hassler (to whom its superintendence 
was confided) was very desirous to execute the re¬ 
commendations of Mr. Adams in extending the com¬ 
parison to authentic weights and measures of foreign 
countries;—a step, both of high interest in itself, and 
absolutely essential (one would think) to a due ad¬ 
ministration of the commercial regulations of the 
country. It is to be regretted that his efforts in 
this regard met with less encouragement and success 
than they deserved. 

The artistical commencement of the work is to be 
dated in March 1836; after a confirmation and stim¬ 
ulus to the acts of the Department had been given in 
the passage of a resolution by the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives; declaring it “ highly expedient that the 
Treasury Department should complete, with as little 
delay as practicable, the fabrication of standards of 
Weight and Measure for the supply of the different 
Custom-houses,” upon the principles already set 
forth. A joint resolution of 14 June 1836, directed 


CHARACTER OF THE STANDARDS MADE. 


1G7 


“a complete set of all the Weights and Measures 
adopted as standards—to be delivered to the Gover¬ 
nor of each State in the Union, or such person as he 
may appoint, for the use of the States respectively 
and on 7 July 1838, a section in the Act for the sup¬ 
port of the Military Academy authorized the con¬ 
struction of standard-balances for the several States. 
This last provision is the only one regarding the 
State of Maryland, that remains as yet not fully 
complied with. 

Farther particulars touching the fabrication of 
these standards, it is obvious, belong properly to the 
account that may be expected in due time from the 
Establishment where they were made: they form at 
least no part of this Report. Up to this time, the 
legal authenticity of the several units may be inferred 
from the Acts and resolves which I have indicated; 
but the fidelity with which these units have been re¬ 
produced and the absolute value and relative accu¬ 
racy of the individual standards, can be estimated 
only by the character of the late Superintendent of 
their construction. For myself—who knew and ap¬ 
preciated that character and, as an occasional friendly 
attendant upon all stages of the operation, have been 
a gratified witness of the integrity and skill of the 
observer—I receive them with the confidence that 
personal convictions alone can inspire. 


PART III. 

OF THE METHODS APPLIED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF 
THE STANDARD MEASURES OF LENGTH IN THE PRE¬ 
SENT ESTABLISHMENT. 

The Resolution of the General Assembly, which 
authorized the construction of these standards, and 
which has been already quoted (ante, page 42,) does 
not by its language imply, much less expressly direct 
that the State-standards shall be precise copies , in all 
mechanical particulars, of those received from the 
United States. It prescribes only that the standard 
value of the several kinds of weights and measures 
shall be retained and re-presented; and it leaves to 
be exercised during the construction, a reasonable 
discretion for introducing such modification of acces¬ 
sory parts and contrivances as that, while the value of 
the measure (of whatever kind) is strictly preserved, 
the implement or standard so preserving that value 
may be suitably adapted, in accuracy, ease of com¬ 
parison and durability, to the fresh uses for which it 
is destined—uses which were not so peculiarly the 
aim of the Weights and Measures furnished by the 


CLASSIFICATION OF STANDARDS OF LENGTH. 169 


United States. These last were principally intended 
to fix and preserve the standard; ours, to dissemi¬ 
nate and make it common. Theirs were for a na¬ 
tional establishment; ours, for popular use. 

Such at least is the theory of the interpretation 
which has been given to the resolve of the Legisla¬ 
ture. In practice, it has been applied only to the 
measures of length—in regard to the other kinds 
there seems to be no occasion; and to what extent, 
under what necessity, and with what advantage it 
has been so applied, will appear by the following 
paragraphs. 

1°. Of the Form of the Yards and their 
accompanying Apparatus . 

All linear standards, which have been hitherto con¬ 
structed either for scientific or national purposes (and 
it might be said, all which can be constructed for either 
or any purpose) may be grouped into two classes; 
the first, comprehending all those cases in which the 
unitary length is defined on the surface of the ma¬ 
terial object representing the standard, by marks, 
traces, or points; the second, comprehending all 
those wherein the substance or mass of the object 
representing the standard, is itself cut off to the pro¬ 
per unitary length. Standards of the former class 
are designated by the French writers on the subject 
(with more terseness than our language readily ad- 
23 


170 


VARIETIES OF STANDARDS A BOUTS. 


mits in this instance) as etalons a traits; standards 
of the latter, as tlalons a boats . 

Each of these may be again arranged into different 
varieties, according to the character of the lines or 
edges which define the measure respectively: but in 
regard to standards a traits , it need only be said 
here, that they are wholly inapplicable for popular 
use; since for comparison either among themselves 
or with others, they demand an optical apparatus of a 
somewhat troublesome and peculiar construction and 
an observer skilled in its management—all which is 
easier to be spoken of than complied with. 

The varieties of the other class,—standards a 
bouts —are more distinctly divisible; inasmuch as they 
require different methods (either optical or mechani¬ 
cal) for the adjustment and comparison of each. 
For example, 1°. they may be made so that the bar 
itself (or a part of it) is cut off to the just length of 
the unit represented; as is the case with the yard¬ 
sticks and foot-rules in common use. These repre¬ 
sent the unit intrinsecally . Or, 2°. they may be so 
made that the just length required shall be contained 
between two pieces projecting from one of the sur¬ 
faces of the bar, either solid parts of the bar itself 
or artificially joined to it. These, (after the fashion 
of the English imperial standards,) represent the 
unite xtrinsecally. They are, in fact, matrices . Or, 
3°. the two varieties may be combined (as is the 
case with the French metres and the United States’ 


DEFECTS OF THE SEVERAL VARIETIES. 


171 


yards) so as to present both the intrinsic unit and its 
matrix. Or, 4°. the two varieties may be separated, 
so as to present the just length between the face of 
one end cut off and of a projection from the other 
end. This last is the form accepted for the yards of 
the present establishment. 

Each of these varieties has its own peculiar advan¬ 
tages and inconveniences, both in original verification 
and in subsequent comparison. It is not necessary 
to criticise in any detail those forms which we have 
not adopted; I shall, therefore, only indicate the 
chief merit and defect of each. The first mentioned 
has the advantage of extreme simplicity; but on the 
other hand, the trouble in making it, is to prevent its 
being too short, for the extension under the heat of 
the hand in the time required for only a minute al¬ 
teration is greater than the error that, in the present 
state of the arts, ought to be allowed in a professed 
standard: and after it is made, every comparison of 
it with another tends to and actually produces a simi¬ 
lar degradation. Standards of this form, therefore, 
could not be relied upon after any length of time, or 
much use. The same objection applies, though in 
just the reverse sense, to the second form mentioned. 
Here the risk to be guarded against in original con¬ 
struction, is lest they be too long; and every time of 
being used afterwards, tends to aggravate the charac¬ 
teristic error. 

The adoption of the third form as in the United 


172 


FORM OF THE U. S. STANDARD YARD. 


States’ standards; it is obvious ; enhances vastly (more 
than doubles) the cost of construction. If the yard 
and its matrix be kept together; it is equally obvious 
that the arrangement passes over into the class of 
standards a traits; which; although the most accu¬ 
rate under microscopic comparison; are; as has been 
said already; in consequence of the necessity of using 
that very method of observing, unfit for popular dif¬ 
fusion. In the Instruction accompanying those stan¬ 
dards it is said that; for popular comparison; the two 
pieces are to be carefully separated. In such a state 
of separation; each is of course liable to the ob¬ 
jections which have been already pointed out as 
attaching to the respective forms; and if the putting 
together and taking apart are effected frequently; it 
is to be presumed that not only will the standards 
be deteriorated for reference asunder; but that the 
originally fine line of junction will become a gap; un¬ 
pleasant and untrustworthy for observation together. 

These considerations and a good many others 
induced me to devise and adopt the peculiar form 
which has been mentioned in the fourth place. This 
is only an L-shaped bar of brass; f of an inch thick; 

1 inch wide and 37 inches long: the foot; or part 
which projects at right angles to the thickness; is 
1 inch square. The inner plane or edge of this pro¬ 
jection is worked true and square with the axis of 
the bar; it is the zero of the measure. Similarly 
true and square ; and parallel therefore to this first 


PECULIAR FORM OF THE PRESENT YARDS. 173 

plane, is worked the other end of the bar; the dis¬ 
tance between the two planes is just the yard.— 
Each such bar when laid direct, is the counterpart 
of another with ends reversed; when so placed 
together, the two form a bar 3$ inches long and 
2 inches wide. The junction of the alternate ends 
presents a favourable line for optical determination; 
and it was in this position and way (as if upon a 
measure a traits) that the yards were actually com¬ 
pared with the standard. For nearer description 
and details, I refer to the paper printed at the end of 
this Report; which is in fact a copy of the Instruc¬ 
tion sent along with the yards, to guide in their pro¬ 
per employment and that of the accompanying appa¬ 
ratus. I shall only speak, therefore, here in regard 
to the general principles of the arrangement. 

Unlike a mere yard cut to length, which requires 
in comparison a separate butting-piece against which 
it and the measure to be compared may press, this 
has its proper butting-piece in itself and is so far 
constantly ready for use. Unlike the matrix-stan¬ 
dards, which admit in comparison only another 
measure exactly right or shorter than the true, this 
admits the laying off of a yard and its subdivisions 
upon a piece of indefinite length: it is also as easy 
in this as in any other form, to lay off a succession of 
yards upon the same piece. And unlike both, which 
have their respective errors of degradation constantly 
in the same sense, the deteriorations of the extremi- 


174 


SUPPOSED MERITS OF THE FORM ADOPTED. 


ties in this occur in opposite senses; while the wear¬ 
ing of the end against which the cutter works, tends 
to shorten the yard, a similar wearing away of the 
other end against which the measures in comparison 
are abutted, tends to lengthen the yard; and thus, 
the amounts of these respective wearings away being 
ordinarily about equal, the just length is always 
maintained. At least, it may be reasonably expected 
to be maintained much longer than with a form 
which admits of no such compensation. In simpli¬ 
city of construction, therefore, in facility and, so to 
speak, fecundity of application and use, in the de¬ 
gree of accuracy obtainable with the least trouble 
and in the shortest time, and in permanent correct¬ 
ness under actual handling—there is reason to be¬ 
lieve that the present form will be found to have 
combined more advantages than either or any of the 
others. 

I need hardly speak of certain minor advantages, 
which were contemplated in its design, too;—they 
are not, however, less real or less proper to be taken 
in account, because they were not admitted to con¬ 
trol the design. Such, for instance, is the oeconomy 
in construction,: which arises not only, in the first 
place, from their being not much required for the 
artist to do, or in the next, from every thing that is 
required, happening to come in the easiest manner; 
but also, and chiefly, from there being no lost work 
nor possibility of lost pieces. This will perhaps be 


MATERIAL FOR STANDARDS NOT DISCRETIONARY. 175 

better understood by the artist than by the general 
reader; but it is not the less true for that. It is suf¬ 
ficient to say, that if a yard a bouts happens in the 
process of adjustment to become too short, or equally 
a matrix-yard to become too long, the pieces are 
irreclaimable. On the other hand, if a yard of the 
present form is made too short by the grinding away 
of one end, the just length can always be restored 
by a corresponding adjustment of the other. Of 
other particulars, such as the arrangement of the ac¬ 
companying apparatus, etc. there is still less occasion 
to speak; they are only such as flow naturally from 
and are suitable to the general principles which I 
have indicated. 

2°. Of the Material of the Standards 
and of the experiments for Expansion . 

The discretion allowed as to the form of the stan¬ 
dards, does not apply to the material of which they 
are to be composed. The character of this is deter¬ 
mined by the phrase of the Resolution, directing that 
the State-standards shall be of the kind furnished by 
the United States; and it is no affectation of verbal 
precision to say that brass standards, for instance, are 
of one kind, and wooden or iron ones, of another. 
On the contrary, it is obvious that when one standard 
or a copy of one professes to represent another or 
its original, so as to be fit to take the place of that 
other, they must so represent each other under all 


176 IRON AND BRASS STANDARDS. 

circumstances—they must be (to speak technically) 
equivalents . And they cannot be said to be equiva¬ 
lent, unless the variations in each (for there is no 
such thing in Nature as absolute repose or freedom 
from change) occur from the same causes, under the 
same circumstances, and to the same extent: the 
affections of both must follow the same law. Thus, 
to take an example which may illustrate what has 
been said; suppose the original standard to be of 
brass and the copy to be of iron, and the latter to 
have been so adjusted that both shall be of exactly 
the same length at a given temperature, say 62° F. 
Then, at any other temperature, in consequence of 
the different affection of the two metals by heat, 
they will be no more of the same length: if the tem¬ 
perature be higher than 62°, the original will be 
longer than the copy; if it be lower than 62°, the 
copy will become longer than the original. In either 
case, they have ceased to be equivalents; and there 
would be a certain discrepancy in attempting to use 
indifferently one for the other. The amount of this 
discrepancy is not so much the question, in the the¬ 
ory of the matter, as its existence; but in practice, it 
is nevertheless quite observable and even serious. 
To take the case just now of iron and brass yards 
adjusted to the same length at 62°: if they are again 
compared in ordinary summer-weather, say 82°, and 
the brass yard is held still to be 36 inches, the iron 


ERRORS FROM DIFFERENCES OF MATERIAL. 177 
35 ; 0075 

one will be 3B.003Z5 inches—a discrepancy intole¬ 
rable in things professing to be equally standards. 

The principal cause of error of this sort; affecting 
standards of lengthy is the change of temperature 
either artificially or in the atmosphere. In standards 
of weighty it is the change of density in the atmos¬ 
phere; that is chiefly to be guarded against. With 
the capacity-measures; errors arise from changes of 
both density and temperature; and in a duplicate 
ratio. For cases of absolute necessity; Science in its 
present state furnishes approximate corrections to 
reduce and neutralize such errors; but otherwise; 
by far the best and most reliable resort is to leave 
them as much as possible out of question; by employ¬ 
ing the same material uniformly throughout; and 
this is what our legislative resolution has discreetly 
determined; by providing that the copies shall be of 
the same kind with the original. 

Following out these ideas ; it would have been de¬ 
sirable for our standards to have had some of the 
same brass ; out of which were made those of the 
United States; for experience shews variations in 
the properties of different specimens of the same 
metal or of what goes under the same generic appel¬ 
lation. And this is especially so in the case of facti¬ 
tious metals or ; as they are called ordinarily; alloys; 
where ; even when the constituent proportions are the 
same and the purity of the elements undoubted; it is 
yet possible to conceive that the mode of combina- 
24 


178 


hassler’s new brass. 


tion may be affected by a difference (unperceived or 
disregarded at the time) in the ratio of the impon¬ 
derable agencies which were at work during the 
process. But such variations are in effect much 
below those of which I have been just now speak¬ 
ing. They are generally treated in practice as with¬ 
out the limits of exact observation: but whether this 
is with reason or not, has not been finally deter¬ 
mined. 

The new brass, which Mr. Hassler caused to be 
made for the United States’ standards, presents in 
several physical characters a marked difference from 
the ordinary brass of commerce; it is softer, freer, 
more uniform in texture, of a more agreeable color, 
and oxidates even with a pleasanter aspect. This 
last particular was a point upon which the late Su- 
perintendant, whose remarkable versatility of genius 
found nothing too great or too small for attention, in 
a manner piqued himself; and the bright eye of the 
aged philosopher gleamed brighter as it watched the 
deepening of what he called his ‘oerugo nobilis.’ 
The composition of it was the result of divers trials 
upon various proportions; and the ingenious and 
novel methods w r hich had served to furnish its con¬ 
stituent elements, were such as were calculated to 
produce the zinc, at least, in much more than usual 
purity. All these peculiarities would have made the 
employment of such metal, had it been possible, of 
great interest and advantage: but it was only to be 


BRASS OF TIIE PRESENT STANDARDS. 179 

procured by a repetition of the original processes— 
a step manifestly disproportioned to the end now in 
view. Under these circumstances, resort was had to 
the article as more usually obtained. 

This was composed, by weight, of 3 parts of copper 
and 1 part of zinc, without other alloy. Its specific 
gravity, hard-hammered as in the actual yards, is 
8.4954 times that of distilled water at 71°.375 F. 
and 30.04 inches of the Barometer. Reduced to a 
temperature of 62° F. for the expansion of both sub¬ 
stances, (the correction for the barometer in the 
weighings being too remote for application,) this 
becomes 8.4919. Taking the average specific gravi¬ 
ties of copper and zinc, that of the compound would 
be by theory 8.2464, if there were no change of 
volume. Berzelius has rated that change of volume 
at about of the aggregate; but in this case such a 
ratio cannot apply, for the tIf difference (to make 
the theoretical equal to the actual specific gravity) is 
already far within it and, besides the chemical change 
of volume, has to cover the mechanical condensation 
produced by the hammering. 

The difference between this result and the specific 
gravity ordinarily assigned to brass, would have been 
an additional call, if any had been necessary, to en¬ 
quire into some of the other physical peculiarities of 
the metal in hand; and principally into the amount 
of its affection by heat or, technically, its factor for 
expansion. But this factor is in itself so important 


180 


ASC 


r OF ITS EXPANSION. 


an element m . ermining the value of the yards, 
both for the present and in any future comparison, 
that its ascertainment was regarded in advance as 
absolutely necessary; and I therefore instituted a 
particular series of experiments with this view. 

The principle upon which these experiments were 
founded, is less new to Science than its application: 
both principle and application, however, have been 
less resorted to in researches of this kind than I think 
they deserve. It is simply the determination of vol¬ 
umes hy weight , instead of by any optical or mechan¬ 
ical method. I do not mean to discuss here the 
merits of any of these methods, or to dwell upon the 
objections to which they are severally liable. I will 
only remark that either of the two last requires a 
special apparatus, more or less complicated and, in 
proportion to the exactness aimed at, itself exactly 
made; while that which I have adopted, demands 
but an accurate balance and weights consistent among 
themselves. Also in any application of either the 
microscope or the lever, it is as difficult as necessary 
to isolate the measuring apparatus from the artificial 
heat applied to the object whose expansion is to be 
measured. I do not say that it is impossible to effect 
such isolation; but I do not believe that it has been 
usually done, if ever: and hence the varieties and 
indeterminateness of the results hitherto obtained. 
On the contrary, in the other, which may be called 


STATHMI0METR1C "M ^/ 1 181 

the stathmiometric* method, all sudh Afrce&of error 
are absorbed; for the result is determined by the 
absolute weight of a given mass, which remains con¬ 
stant whether the mass be hot or cold. Finally, in 
this the cubic expansion or change of volume is given 
directly; while in any of the so-called pyrometric 
processes, the immediate ascertainment is but of the 
linear expansion i. e. the extension properly so called. 
Of course, whatever errors belong to the actual expe¬ 
riment, they are tripled in the subsequent inference 
of the expansion. Such appear to me the chief 
points fit to be considered, in regard to the principle 
of the method. I defer the mention of some others, 
also of interest, until the Report hereafter upon the 
Capacity-measures; where there will be more appro¬ 
priateness and more room for the discussion of such 
questions. And to the same place and on the same 
account, I also postpone the detailed description of 
the arrangement and of the experiments. I shall 
only give here, in as few words as possible, an idea 
of the apparatus; and state the final results, as they 
have been applied in deducing the value of the mea¬ 
sures of length. 

To a glass vessel, about 5 inches in diameter and 
5.5 inches high, with a hemispherical bottom, and 
capable of containing nearly 3.5 pounds avoirdupois 
of distilled water, was fitted a ground brass cover. 


* q. d. araOjuov-iuTpov ; linear measures by the balance, or volume from weight. 


182 


DESCRIPTION OF THE APPARATUS. 


This cover was pierced in the centre and ground to 
admit a circular brass collar of 1 inch diameter, 
which carried two thermometers reading to 400° F.; 
the bulb of one of which reached nearly to the bot¬ 
tom of the vessel, while that of the other was the 
same distance in regard to the top. There was also 
another aperture in the cover to admit the ground 
end of a glass tube of one-fifth of an inch bore, to 
serve as the extravasation-tube. This tube was so 
fitted to a projecting collar in the cover, as that its 
lower end was exactly even with the lower face of 
the latter: it then ascended vertically for nearly 3 
inches, was then bent horizontally for about 8 inches 
completely to clear the apparatus, and then bent 
downwards for 4 inches; so that its outer end was 
little more than an inch below the level of the inner. 
The additional length given to this leg, as well as the 
bore taken for the tube, were both based upon a the¬ 
oretical calculation of what would be required to 
neutralize any pressure from expansion, of the liquid 
to be heated in the vessel. In fact, the calculation 
seems to have been borne out. 

To the lower face of the brass cover, and kept 
from it by studs of a quarter-inch deep, was screwed 
another circular brass plate; cut with parallel slits 
from the circumference towards the centre, first to 
admit the safe passage of the long thermometer, and 
secondly to hold, by means of slight grooves worked 
in them, fourteen pieces of brass, about 4 inches long, 


TESTS FOR BALANCES. 


183 


1 inch wide and f of an inch thick, and weighing 
together upwards of 7 pounds. These pieces were 
in reality portions of bars for actual yards; and had 
been subject to the same treatment as the yards 
themselves. The grooves allowed them to be placed 
and removed at pleasure; when in place, they were 
about a half inch off from the inner surface of the 
glass, both bottom and side. 

The weight of this apparatus, as well as that of 
the brass pieces, was then ascertained; and also the 
weight of the contents of the vessel in distilled water 
and linseed-oil respectively, both when the brass- 
pieces were in place and when they were removed. 
In these weighings (the balances attributable to the 
State of Maryland not being yet ready) I employed 
a large balance belonging to the United States 5 
Weight and Measure Establishment; for the permis¬ 
sion to use which, I am indebted to the kind inter¬ 
vention of Professor Bache, the present Superinten- 
dant of that Establishment. It was deficient in 
divers little adjustments for farthering the conve¬ 
nience of the operator; but otherwise, there were 
no defects not remediable by attention and patience. 
Its results shewed themselves to be quite consistent 
and reliable. For the lesser weighings, I had a small 
balance from Mr. Green (to whose intelligence and 
skill, every part of my work is deeply indebted) 
which proved of remarkable fitness for the purpose. 

I shall leave the peculiar tests which I applied to this 


184 


APPLICATION OF LINSEED-OIL. 


balance, the mode of determining its constant of 
friction and of comparing the theoretical value of its 
arcs of vibration with the actual, to be introduced 
hereafter in the Report upon the Measures of Weight; 
where the properties and habitudes of balances will 
appropriately come up for consideration. 

Linseed-oil was chosen as the liquid proper for 
measuring the expansion of the metal; because its 
own boiling point is so much higher, and the ratio of 
its own expansion was presumed to be more constant, 
than that of other substances which might be thought 
of. I have no reason to believe, upon a full discus¬ 
sion of the experiments, that the action of the im¬ 
mersed brass exercised any appreciable influence 
upon that ratio. Before weighing, the oil was first 
raised to and kept for a half-hour at a temperature of 
about 250°, in order to drive off any combined water. 
It was not subjected to any analysis; because it was 
obtained fresh from the manufactory of the Messrs. 
Smiths, of Baltimore, who guaranteed it as free from 
any adventitious impurity. 

The weighings I have mentioned, gave not only 
the elements for expansion both of linseed-oil and 
brass, but also for the specific gravity of both sub¬ 
stances as compared with distilled water. An idea 
of the exactness which is attainable by the use of 
such large quantities as those which were operated 
on as well as the implements which were employed, 
may be formed when I say that the specific gravity 


EXTRAVASATION THE MEASURE OF EXPANSION. 1S5 

of the brass deduced directly from the water-weigh¬ 
ings, was 8.49544 and indirectly from oil-weighings 
reduced to the same temperature, 8.49539. The 
specific gravity of the oil at 71°.375 F. 30.04 B. was 
0.93075: reduced to the temperature of 62° F. with¬ 
out correction for the barometer, it is 0.93315. The 
volume occupied by the pieces of brass (that of the 
vessel being taken as unity) was 
reduced to 67° from observation at 69° = 0.2504741 
observed at 67° in another experiment = 0.2504750 
These weighings being completed, the next step 
was to place the vessel filled with oil, but with¬ 
out the pieces of brass, in a sand-bath over a char¬ 
coal-fire. The initial temperature was read on the 
thermometers at the time of applying the heat; and 
then as nearly as might be at intervals of every 70°, 
through the range of the thermometers, the quantity 
of oil extravasated was weighed. For this, two 
spherical bottles had been provided, with necks that 
admitted the outer end of the extravasation-tube 
before mentioned; and they were alternately substi¬ 
tuted at the proper intervals. The rate at which the 
oil dropped over, was such as to allow this alternate 
removal and replacement without waste. It is ob¬ 
vious that the ratio of the weight of the included oil 
at the initial temperature to the weight of oil extra¬ 
vasated at any epoch, is equal to the expansion of 
linseed-oil in glass for the actual interval. Divided 
25 


186 


PHENOMENA OF THE THERMOMETERS. 


by the number of degrees in said interval, it is equal 
to the expansion for one degree. 

The same steps repeated, with the difference of the 
pieces of brass being in place, will of course give the 
ratio of the joint expansion of linseed-oil and brass. 
Discounting from this, the ratio already obtained for 
oil alone, w r e have left what is due to the expansion 
of the brass. 

The ratio obtained for the oil and here used, is not 
the absolute expansion of linseed-oil; it is, as I have 
already called it, the expansion of such oil in glass. 
It may be readily made thus absolute, by deducting 
from it the quantity taken as the expansion of glass. 
But this was not necessary for the present purpose; 
the behaviour of the glass and the correction for its 
actual expansion, being assumed to be identical in 
both series of experiments. 

The range of the temperature for the oil alone was 
in fact carried, in one set, up to 398° F.; but having 
reason to conclude, from some symptoms which man¬ 
ifested themselves especially during those series in 
which the brass was in place, that the equilibrium of 
temperature in the mass was beginning to be de¬ 
stroyed, I saw fit to reject the observation of this last 
epoch. For instance, the thermometers, which in 
the beginning read alike, differed when the mean 
temperature was about 140°, three or four degrees; 
and, in one set, more—the shorter one being (as it 
should be in theory) the higher. They then gradu- 


EXPANSION OF LINSEED-OIL IN GLASS. 


187 


ally came nearer and nearer together, shewing a 
more and more perfect equilibrium, until about 360° 
to 370°; when the readings changed their signs, and 
the lower thermometer shewed the higher tempera¬ 
ture. I suppose that by that time, the ratio of the 
quantities of heat applied had exceeded the conduct¬ 
ing powers both of the sand and of the oil, as well as 
the power of circulation in the latter; and the bot¬ 
tom, therefore, of the bath, which was nearest the 
fire, became hotter than the sides. In point of fact, 
however, the ratio of expansion deduced at this 
highest epoch of 398°, differs very slightly from the 
others (only in the seventh place of decimals;) but 
it is affected with a contrary sign—the ratio, having 
gone on to diminish through all the preceding inter¬ 
vals, in this last increases again. 

I now present the final results for both substances. 

Expansion of Linseed-oil in glass. 

Volume = 1., at 72° F. 29.93 B. 


Ratio of Expansion for 1° F. 


Temperatures. 

From 72° to 144°.25 mean. 
72 210. 50 

72 281. 50 


0.000406520 

0.000396316 

0.000395280 

0.000395253 

0.000397511 


72 353. 
72 398. 


In deducing from this series a mean for the abso¬ 
lute expansion of linseed-oil, I should incline to re¬ 
ject the first and last numbers as being too much 
involved in uncertainties of temperature; although 



188 


EXPANSION OF HAMMERED BRASS. 


in reality, the difference will be so small as hardly to 
be worth the arbitrament. The factor which I actu¬ 
ally employed for the absolute expansion of the oil 
(assuming that of glass to be 0.000014355,) in ad¬ 
justing the weight of the mass at several initial tem¬ 
peratures varying from 65° to 72°, was 0.00039 for 
1° F. This was accepted, in regard both to the pos¬ 
sible error of the two extreme observations and to 
the manifest convergency of the series. 


Expansion of Brass , hammered. 

Volume 1., at 67° F. 30.08 B. 

Temperatures. Ratio of Expansion for 1° F. Ratio of Extension for 1° F. 


From 67° to 144° 

0.000034048 

Length 1. — at 67° F. 

0.000011349 

67 

210.5 

0.000033977 

0.000011320 

67 

284. 

0.000033912 

0.000011304 

67 

351.5 

0.000033813 

0.000011271 


The mean of the Extensions in the last column, 
would result in an expansion of 0.00040725 inch 
upon the yard for every 1° in temperature. The 
number actually used in the reductions to correspond 
with a change of 1°, is 0.000400; which recom¬ 
mended itself by its simplicity and by its being very 
near the mean of Hassler’s, Troughton’s, and my own 
determinations. It is proper to have regard to the 
results of the two former observers; because those of 
the first-named are professedly given as applicable to 
the United States’ standards, and those of the sec¬ 
ond, justly considered among the best we have, may 



hassler’s factor of expansion. 189 

be fairly attributed to the microscope-bar; which, 
not treated like the yard-bars, has less claim to be 
ruled by the index that governs the metal of which 
they were made. 

I said just now that the extension of Hassler was 
professedly applicable to the United States 5 standard: 
and it is in so far the fact, since no experiment was 
had upon the actual metal of those standards, but the 
factor used for them is derived from pyrometric ob¬ 
servations on (I believe, English) brass by Mr. Hass¬ 
ler in 1816, long before the origin of the present 
establishment. This factor, I think I am authorized 
in saying, was only used provisionally, until a proper 
occasion and suitable methods could be taken advan¬ 
tage of, for ascertaining the true one. I have ad¬ 
mitted it, therefore, to modify the index of expansion 
of the present yards, only because I knew it to be 
a skilful and accurate observation and worthy to fur¬ 
nish, with Mr. Troughton’s, a mean extension for 
average brass, such as the microscope-bar (and even 
the standard, in default of more precise research) 
may be classed among. 

While upon this point, it will be not amiss to men¬ 
tion an accidental error which has crept in the state¬ 
ment of the extension of the brass yards, both in the 
Instruction accompanying the standard’s certificate 
and also in the official report upon the same subject. 
In both, such extension is stated as 0.0003732508 
inch upon a yard, for 1° F. It should have been 


190 ARTISTICAL ADJUSTMENT OF THE YARDS. 

0.00037832508 inch. The error is not likely to be 
attended with any ill consequence; but still it is as 
well to have it pointed out. 

3°. Of the adjustment and verification 
of the Yards . 

After the bars, cast of the proper shape, had been 
dressed down to the due guage in width and thick¬ 
ness and brought approximately to the required 
length, the next step was to work the inner face of 
the matrix-end to a true plane; at right angles to a 
line cut longitudinally of the bar, serving as its axis 
and as the base of the graduations which were after¬ 
wards to be inscribed. This line, about an eighth of 
an inch from the inside-edge, as well as its fellow, 
which was drawn about the same distance nearer to 
the middle of the bar, were both parallel, exactly as 
could be, to the edges. The standard-yard, being 
now separated from its matrix, allowed the bar so 
prepared to be adjusted to it. Raised upon a piece 
of white pine wood of such thickness as to bring its 
face exactly even with that of the standard, and in 
the focus of the microscopes,—its matrix-end, em¬ 
bracing the standard, formed at that side an exact 
joint; while a separate butting-piece, ground to a 
plane face and capable of being applied at once to 
the standard and bar together, afforded (when the 
adjustment was complete and the two measures of 
the same length) an equally perfect joint at the 


THE SCALE OF INCHES. 


191 


other. In this state, they were examined with the 
microscope, the temperature being chosen as nearly 
as possible at 62°; and the new yard so adjusted was 
taken as the guage to which the others were to be 
worked^ without again referring to the standard until 
the final verification. 

The peculiar shape of the yards was calculated, 
among other things, for the very purpose of their 
thus serving reciprocally to guage each other; and it 
can be easily seen that the nicety and perfection of 
the contact when both bars are at the same tempera¬ 
ture, afford to the artist all that can be desired for 
guiding his work. In fact, experience shews that 
they were all capable of being brought by this method 
within tbVtt of an inch of the just length. No bar, 
however, was allowed to be worked upon twice in 
the same day; otherwise, there would have been no 
assurance of an equilibrium of temperature. 

After this, the graduation to tenths (and for the 
first tenth to hundredths) of yards was copied under 
the microscope from the standard, in the space in¬ 
cluded between the parallel axial lines before spoken 
of. The zero for this graduation was a line which 
had been cut on purpose, and which was a prolonga¬ 
tion of the line down to which the plane of the 
matrix-end had been worked. The graduation of 
inches was subsequently applied. Though not upon 
the standard, it was such a point as was presumed to 
be among the discretionary ones; and its interest, in 


192 


DECIMAL GRADUATION. 


the subsequent popular use of the standard, was so 
manifest as to induce me to execute it. Had the 
question arisen with me in the preparation of original 
standards, I confess I could never so far have repu¬ 
diated a proveable antiquity of more than a thousand 
years, as to have left out, in the presentation of a 
Saxon yard, its habitual subdivision in inches. On 
this account, therefore, I was the more ready to re¬ 
store the old connections by the additional graduation. 

The decimal graduation was put upon the United 
States’ yard, principally for the use of the Custom¬ 
houses. I presume it is employed there to facilitate 
the reduction of linear measures to wine-gallons; the 
proportion between a wine-gallon and a cubic yard 
being sufficiently near a whole number to be taken as 
such, without material error. There might have 
been besides, on the part of the late Superintendant, 
a lingering fondness from former associations for de¬ 
cimal subdivisions in general. But whatever may 
be the impulse or the utility in the division to tenths 
upon these standards, it might have been dispensed 
with upon ours and would have been except that, in 
point of fact, it was easier to be put on than ex¬ 
plained, in case of question, why it was left off. 

The perpendicularity of the lines in all these grad¬ 
uations, (or rather of motion in the tracer by which 
all the lines were cut) was assured by cutting, with 
the whole movement of the implement, fine lines on 
the two faces of a clear plate of mica, until they en- 


THE MICROSCOPE-APPARATUS. 


193 


tirely coincided. The faces of the mica for this 
purpose should be even, and one edge should be 
straight; the rest of the figure is indifferent. Such 
are the principal points requiring mention in the 
account of the adjustment of the yards. 

For their final verification, I made use of a micro¬ 
scopic apparatus, similar in general arrangement to 
that which was employed by Mr. Hassler; and which 
will be found described in his Report of June 1832, 
already referred to. The bar supporting the micro¬ 
scopes, being intended only for comparisons of yards, 
was not much more than half the length of Mr. 
Hassler’s; which was to take in double-metres. The 
microscopes were of the usual construction, with 
Ramsden’s eye-pieces; they magnified, when ad¬ 
justed to the focus of my sight (which is about three 
inches for distinct vision of minute objects,) lineally 
19 times and superficially, rather more than 360 
times. Both of them had micrometers attached; 
and I am confirmed by experience in the opinion, 
which I had before, of the importance of this addi¬ 
tion, both to the facility and accuracy of the observa¬ 
tion. The method of sliding the measure under 
comparison along the stand, until its zero corres¬ 
ponds with fixed cross-hairs in the microscope, is 
excessively tedious and wastes time that might be 
better devoted in other parts of the operation; and 
as for accuracy of coincidence, one is, in plain reason, 
much more likely to be exact in effecting minute 
26 


194 


METHOD OF TWO MICROMETERS. 


translations in space (as, for instance, through the 
of an inch) by the motion of a fine screw than 
by the pushing or the hammering of a heavy bar. 
As far as I can estimate from many trials, the chances 
of equal accuracy in this point by the two methods 
is about as 6 to 100; and of the six times, in which 
an optical contact will be made satisfactorily by the 
motion of the bar itself, two will be accidental,—that 
is, the contact will have been effected when you did 
not expect it. 

The micrometers being turned conversely, i. e 
their graduated heads both outward or both inward 
as may be preferred, and the signs + or — being 
marked on the proper sides of zero, according to 
position, once for all,—there is no possibility of con¬ 
fusion in keeping the run of the two, any more than 
if there was but one. In the present instance, the 
micrometer-heads were both outward; and both 
standing at zero upon the standard, the algebraic 
sum of their readings upon any other yard, repre¬ 
sented the errors of that yard. Also, if such sum 
came out with a minus sign, it signified the yard itself 
to be too long; if with a plus sign, to be too short . 

The micrometers were intended to read the yt>U-u 
of an inch. So, the threads of the screws being 
about 78 to the inch, the head of the micrometer 
was divided into 120 parts instead of 100, as usual; 
in order to restore the required decimal. After¬ 
wards, in the actual adjustment of the glasses, the 


ERRORS FROM THE FACE OF SUPPORT-TABLE. 195 

micrometers were purposely left to read (as they nat¬ 
urally would) a little differently; in order to disem¬ 
barrass the observations from any prepossession or 
reliance upon the same run of the numbers in the 
different microscopes. The ultimate value adopted, 
exact to the sixth place of decimals, (or millionths 
of an inch) was for 

micrometer a : 0.000054 in. 
micrometer b : 0.000056 in. 

A greater difference of readings would have been 
desirable; but these suited best with the optical focus 
of the cross-hairs and the divisions. 

The whole apparatus was sustained by, and the 
observations made on a marble slab; the upper surface 
of which was, with great pains and repeated trials, 
ground to a perfectly uniform plane, and then pol¬ 
ished. Set upon two strong tressels, it was care¬ 
fully levelled in all directions, and well-braced. This 
material was preferred to wood, because of the lia¬ 
bility of the latter to change its face by local shrink¬ 
ages in seasoning. Considering the length of time 
necessary for the numerous observations which were 
required, a w T ooden table for the purpose was abso¬ 
lutely inapplicable. Captain Kater has already sig¬ 
nalized the grievous error he was near committing, 
in the Russian copy of the Imperial standard, from 
inattention at first to this particular. 

The method to which he resorted for obviating 
errors of this kind, viz: the cutting away of the ex- 


196 


rater’s remedy. 


tremities of the measure down to, or about, the neu¬ 
tral axis of the bar,—could not be applied in this 
case: but I consider that they are equally obviated, 
first by the elaboration and (I may say) perfection of 
the plane on which the measures rested, and sec¬ 
ondly, by the results of the peculiar combinatory 
mode in which those measures were read. 

The surface of the marble was polished , in order 
to secure an easy and agreeable movement of the 
pieces, which in their combination required frequent 
changings; and this, not out of respect only to the 
surface of the standards but to the accuracy of mea¬ 
surement, flowing from the perfect adjustment of 
every part. For the comparisons, the brackets that 
carried the microscopes, and whose proportions made 
the axis of collimation of each, equidistant from the 
anterior edge of the bar supporting them, were so 
shifted in the slots of their pedestals as that micro¬ 
scope a was ■§• of an inch in advance of the other, 
marked b. They were then carefully adjusted at 
right angles to the bar. This last was determined 
by similar means to those which had been employed 
in making the motion of the tracer, perpendicular. 
And the microscopes were turned in their collars, 
until the perpendicular line visible on both sides of 
the plate of mica bisected the angle (about 30°) of 
the cross-hairs. This position of the microscopes 
threw the measurement of course A of an inch, on 
both sides, out of the axis of the standard; which 


PARALLELISM OF THE ENDS OF THE STANDARD. 197 

axis may be assumed to intersect midway the lines 
formed by the junction of the yard and its matrix. 
But it was ascertained, by moving the standard to 
different distances from the edge of the microscope- 
bar; still keeping it parallel so as to bring successively 
every part of the lines aforesaid under the micro¬ 
scopes; that those lines had been worked so parallel 
as to present no appreciable difference till at the very 
extremities; where the contact did not present a fair 
line for observation. Also ; in all these positions; the 
lines continued to bisect; satisfactorily enough; the 
cross-hairs. In so far ; therefore; the adjustments of 
the microscope served as a test for the artistical work¬ 
manship of the standard. Whether in an extreme 
case, that of measuring with microscopes duly ad¬ 
justed and reading near the opposite diagonal cor¬ 
ners; the test would have equally applied; there was 
no opportunity for observing; nor indeed was it of 
any interest. 

When ; then; the lines of the standard brought to 
its normal position; (i. e. at such distance from the 
microscope-bar; that the readings were iV of an inch 
respectively above and below its axis ; ) bisected the 
cross-hairs; the micrometer-heads were set to zero; 
the standard was moved nearer to the bar; and in its 
stead were placed two of the yards ; fully supported 
upon the piece of white pine before mentioned; and 
mutually interlocked; in the way that I have already 
mentioned. I did not mention before; however; that 


198 


COMPENSATION OF TEMPERATURE. 


the microscope-bar was the farthest off from the ob¬ 
server ; with the standard and the yards to be observed; 
between. This position was chosen in order to pro¬ 
duce a compensation for temperature; the remoteness 
of the microscopic apparatus in some degree balanc¬ 
ing against the longer time that it was subject to the 
radiation from the person of the operator. But even 
these precautions; though I believe they palliated; 
could not prevent; in the course of some hours ; a 
visible difference of temperature. 

The reason; now ; for the dislocation of the micro¬ 
scopes will be apparent. It was to secure a reading 
upon the butting planes of the mutually interlocked 
yards; at a point where such reading would be under 
the best circumstances and nearest to the axis of the 
yard. The true axis ; both as regards symmetry of 
position and the direction along which the original 
mean length will be longest preserved; coincides with 
the interior edge of the bar; but it would have been 
unsuitable to measure here ; because this is precisely 
the line that would have been embarrassed at both 
ends by any imperfect junction of the solid with the 
re-entering angles of the bars. And it is next to 
impossible; (as maybe easily conceived;) even work¬ 
ing at an indefinite cost; to make a number of bars so 
minutely perfect as that their corners should fit; each 
to each indifferently, exactly alike ; or that an irregu¬ 
larity in their angular junctions should not be mani¬ 
fest under a high magnifying power. The actual 


METHOD OF COMBINATION. 


199 


axis of measurement^ then, was chosen at A of an 
inch within the true; it passes, therefore, midway 
along the scale of inches; and the same reliance is to 
be placed upon the parallelism of the planes in these 
yards, as in those of the U. S. standard. 

Further, in yards of the present shape, what is 
w r anted to determine their value, is the mean distance 
apart of the end-planes. These planes were intended 
to be perfectly vertical; and they are so in fact, to a 
very great exactness—I may say, greater than exists 
in the same regard in the U. S. standard. But I 
would not, without a more profound detail and elabo¬ 
ration of tests, than I thought it requisite to apply, 
assume them to be absolutely perfect. I preferred to 
correct the errors, where they might exist, by the 
method of observation; for which also, the form of 
the yards peculiarly served. 

This method was, to regard all the other yards 
combined with a given one (for instance No. 1) as 
so many butting-pieces; applied more advantageously 
than if they were independent and separate. Thus, 
in point of fact, the yard marked No. 1 was com¬ 
bined with all the others; and the value accepted for 
it was the mean of more than fifty readings, the dif¬ 
ference between the greatest and least of which was 
yet within tA<f of an inch. I believe that its value, 
thus derived, will be considered much nearer the 
truth than if it had been obtained in any other more 
usual manner. 


200 


ERRORS OF CONSTANT BUTTING-PIECES. 


For, had ordinary butting-pieces been used, the 
resulting value would have been counted upon the 
surface of the yard; which is precisely that part 
that will not be taken, in the subsequent popular 
comparison. And this w r ould be the case, had the 
readings been made at various corresponding points 
on the upper and under surface. Such readings 
would have given four (or more) values for the edges 
of the end-planes, and would test the parallelism of 
the planes themselves; but would still leave possible 
an undetected difference in the centre of those 
planes, which centre will be in general the zero- 
point used. 

Moreover in the employment of a constant butting- 
piece, its error must be either assumed as null, or it 
will be a constant error, uncompensated for. The 
former assumption, in any physical experiment, is at 
least unsafe; while to admit an error without endea¬ 
vor to compensate for it, is still worse. In fact, there 
being necessarily two butting-pieces, the chances of 
error in this respect are doubled; and the error itself 
not always diminished. In the present comparisons, 
however, the desirable compensation is afforded; 
first, by there being such a number of butting-pieces, 
that this error (whatever it may be) is not constant, 
but on the contrary, may be fairly expected to occur 
in opposite senses; and secondly, by the errors being 
themselves developed and allowed for in the appro¬ 
priate value of each particular yard. The only pre- 


EaUALIZED ILLUMINATION OF THE LINES. 


201 


sumption in the case, is that the errors of the planes 
will affect the visible junction of the pieces, whether 
they arise from want of vertically, from sphericity 
in either sense, or from some accidental and foreign 
irregularity. That the dust, deposited from the at¬ 
mosphere of the apparatus-room in the course of a 
few days only, would so affect the junction, I had 
abundant opportunities of observing. 

Leaving these discussions, however, and coming to 
the actual details of the process, the yard numbered 
1 was compared with the standard, in combination 
with all the others. There were thirty-two in all; 
of which thirty were for the immediate purpose of 
distribution, and the spare ones were made as well 
for future need as against a possible present one. 
But No. 30 2 was only worked to length, in order to 
serve as a combination-bar: it did not receive all the 
graduations made upon the others. It so happened 
that only twenty-seven of these were used with 
No. 1; and their mean in two positions (to equalize 
the illumination of the lines) gave a final reading of 
—0,000203 inches, or very nearly TTmnr of an inch 
too long. 

As an illustration of the method and order of ob¬ 
serving, I give here an extract from the Journal for 
part of two days; to present it in full would need¬ 
lessly swell this already too long Report. 


27 


Extract from the Journal; shewing the mode of registering the Compari 





00 


Cl 


© 


© 




© 



o 


CO 




© 




Cl 



CO 


ID 


rH 


© 




CO 



o 


© 


© 


© 




© 



o 


© 


© 


© 




© 



© 


© 


© 


© 




© 

in o 
ci © 


© 


© 


© 


© 




© 

r ' *pH 

rv in 


4- 


1 


1 


1 




1 

pS o 

a o« 
v- . 


o 


© 


© 


© 




© 

ci £ 


o 


ID 


ID 


ID 




© 

^ SJ 


Cl 


© 


© 


© 




rH 

CO +■• 


o 


© 


© 


© 




© 

rH 


o 


© 


© 


© 




© 

_ © 


o 

• 

o 


© 

• 

© 


© 

• 

© 


© 

• 

© 




© 

# 

© 

>»*g 
a > 

© — 


+ 


1 


1 


1 




4- 

c/3 *2 

5 3 
s o 




ID 


ID 


ID 





f . 




Cl 


Cl 


Cl 




ID 

CH O 


ID 


rH 


rH 


rH 




Cl 

Vh 

3 Vh 

o 

© 


© 


© 


© 




© 

o o 
.. o 


4- 


1 


1 


1 




4- 

in w 

Vh c\ 

2 ^ 


00 


Cl 


© 


© 




© 

C ^ 


o 


00 


Cl 


rH 




Cl 

° O 


rH 




rH 


© 





® 33 


o 


© 


© 


© 




© 

3= w 


o 


© 


© 


© 




© 

~.g 


© 


© 


© 

• 


© 




© 

• 


d 


© 


© 


© 




© 

o OT 

Vh © 


4- 


1 


1 


1 




1 

C3 Vh 

S 2, 

CO 

© 

00 

© 

rH 


© 

© 



CO 

© 

d a> 

Cl 

00 

CO 

© 

© 

ID 

rH 

rH 



CO 

© 

rH D 

rH 

o 



rH 

rH 

© 

© 





r\ 

O 

o 

o 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 



© 

© 


O 

o 

o 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

• 

• 

© 

© 

ci o 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

• 

© 

© 



© 

• 

© 


© 

d 

d 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 



© 

© 

c 5 

4- 4“ 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 



1 

1 

JZ 

© C3 

0> Vh 

b-. a> 




© 

Cl 


© 

© 

rH 


oo 

00 

p o« 

o 

Cl 

o 

oo 

rH 

Cl 



CO 


Cl 

Cl 

— s 

ID 

Cl 

ID 

Cl 

rH 

Cl 



© 



!> 

g a> 

© 

o 

o 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 


© 

© 

W H-a 

o 

o 

o 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

• 

© 

© 

o a> 

o 

o 

o 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 


© 

© 

© 33 

• 

o 

• 

o 

• 

o 

• 

© 

• 

© 

• 

© 

• 

© 

• 

© 

• 

© 


© 

• 

© 


4" 4- 4" 

1 

+ 

4- 

+ 

+ 

1 


+ 


o . 

v- > 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

ID 

• 

ID 

• 

ID 

• 


• 

• 

cy J> 

© 


© 

ID 

Cl 


00 

00 

rH 

© 

CO 

CO 

W 2 









rH 


S ^ 

4- 

4- 4- 

1 

+ + 

+ 

+ 

i 


4- 

+ 

.2 s 

© a> 
cC ^ 

oo 

ID 

Cl 

© 

© 

00 

© 

© 

CO 


rH 


E ■& 

s.s 

N 

CO 

N 

rH 

rH 

*> 

GO 

00 

© 


© 

CO 

CO 

rH 

© 

Cl 

Cl 

CO 



rH 


rH 

rH 

o 

o 

o 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 


rH 

rH 

-= 2 

o 

o 

o 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

• 

© 

© 

'H 

o 

• 

o 

• 

o 

• 

© 

• 

© 

• 

© 

• 

© 

• 

© 

• 

© 


© 

• 

© 

• 

g 3 

o 

o 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 


© 

© 

2 o 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4- 


1 

I 

♦-* 2 
in co 

Vh 


ID 








ID 


© ~ 

♦J 

• 

*> 

ci 

00 

• 

• 

• 

d 

d 

ci 

© 

• 

rH 

• 

rH 

5 § 



rH 







Cl 

Cl 

E-i „ 

I 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

l 

l 

4- 


1 

1 

2 
• 3 



ID 










w H 

2 Vh 

• 

o 


i> 








• 


o 

« rH '■H 

Cl 

• 

rH 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Cl 

• 

s s 
© § 

ID 


ID 








ID 


• 

o 


• 








• 


>» c 

Cl 


Cl 







• 

Cl 


•c 

ID 


ID 




• 


• 


ID 


rt *n 
vj a> 

/ Lj 










ID 



V#J © 

<y D 

• 

• 

• 

Cl 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

rH 

• 

• 

o t? 

(D 2 

e o> 



ID 







ID 



r/3 ^ 













- s 










ID 



<y a> 

♦J 4-> 



• 







*> 



ci . 

• 

• 

Cl 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

fH 

• 

• 

Q <2 



id 

- 






ID 



Vh • 

m H 

Cl 


CO 






• 




5 g 3 

CCS 
C 3 © 

a> 

<D 


a> 

ID 

<v 

•"CJ 


© 

<D 

v 3 O 

ctf 

in 

<D 


w 

Vh 

a> 

cfeJ 

xn 

o 

c# 

in 

Vh 

0) 

T* 

r ^ 

• 


m 

v-< 

<U 

3 0 0 
o ° - 

* m 

rH 

i> 

<v 

rH 

> 

a> 

rH 

> 

a> 

rH 

> 

<v 

m 

• 

O 

rH 

> 

<D 

2 2 0 
r c -3 

in 

u 

• 

in 


• 

m 

f-1 

CO 


GQ 


• 

m 


O 


o 


O 


O 


• 


O 


Eh »-< 

£ 






& 


3 


& 


c; 

•rH 
























METHODS OF GROUPING. 


203 


This No. 1 was the only yard that required to be 
so extensively combined. Its results, it is manifest, 
gave not only a number of values for that single one; 
but also a single value for each of the others. By 
these values, were determined the slight alterations, 
that were necessary in some of them, to bring them 
all within thfW of an inch + or — of the standard. 
They were then (excluding No. 1) grouped to¬ 
gether by fours; or, in other words, the four nearest 
of one length were combined together. This num¬ 
ber in a groupe was taken, to afford a sufficient variety 
of contacts; the identity in length, to ensure perfec¬ 
tion in the contact. But as it happened sometimes 
that identity of thickness, as well as of length, was 
wanting for such perfection, so it became necessary 
in some cases to overrun the original groupe. The 
average number of observations for each, turned out 
to be five; some had as many at nine; none, less 
than four. 

From each groupe, then, I selected (still exclu¬ 
ding the combination with No. 1) three readings; in 
which the joints of the bars had presented the best 
contact, and which therefore were also the most ac¬ 
cordant. I should have considered, had it been 
necessary, this last circumstance admissible as one of 
the principles of selection; but in fact, there was no 
occasion. The discord of the observations through¬ 
out was less than the correction for a difference of 
temperature of 1 ° F. Such a correction, the maxi- 


204 


CORRECTIONS-PROBLEM. 


mum applied, shewed, of course,, the maximum limit 
within which it was allowable to take a mean. The 
average of these three readings gave an independent 
mean value for each yard. 

I did not comprehend in this mean, the value 
which had been found by combination with No. 1; 
I reserved this last for another application, viz: the 
correction of each yard, considered as a butting- 
piece. The determination of this correction is only 
the resolution of the problem:— to find in the joining 
line of the butting-planes respectively , the point at 
which the reading should be taken; and where it 
would have been taken, had each yard, used as a 
butting-piece for any other, been (what it aimed to 
be) an exact yard. It is, in other words, a reduc¬ 
tion of results, abstraction being made of the acci¬ 
dental faults of workmanship; which faults are seen 
under different phases and therefore submit them¬ 
selves to calculation, in a series of observations sys¬ 
tematically varied and combined. Habitually in prac¬ 
tice, the cross-hairs of the microscope are made to 
bisect the joining-line of the butting-planes; and the 
possible error between the half-width* of that line 
and the real zero of either plane, is disregarded. 

* In the most glaringly wide joint which I had occasion to notice, I endea¬ 
vored to measure the width from edge to edge; deadening the irradiations and 
bringing up the image of the edges quite clearly by means of a piece of white 
paper, with which I veiled in part the field of the object glass. The quantity 
read, was 12 divisions on microm. A, equal to 0.000648 inch. This gives the 
extremest scope of the problem. 


AFFECTION OF ERRORS. 


205 


This, in the case where the measure is a traits , is 
perfectly proper; because the true zero is really in 
the middle of the trace. And it is allowable also in 
measures a bouts , either whenever the measure pro¬ 
fesses to refer only to the surface, or whenever the 
same butting-piece is to be constantly used; in the 
latter case, because every subsequent comparison will 
be upon the middle of the same line which was bi¬ 
sected in the original determination; and in the 
former, because it is very possible to make the con¬ 
tact of two mere edges so minute as to be masked by 
the finest spider-line in a microscope. But when 
the question comes to be, to make four planes so 
perfect that both horizontally and vertically they shall 
coincide and be as one, the artistical difficulties are 
vastly enhanced; and unless those difficulties be met 
and overcome, (which is not professed in the present 
case,) it seems to me absolutely imperative that allow¬ 
ance be made for the width of the line of junction. 
This is precisely, therefore, what has been done. 

The mode of deducing and applying the correc¬ 
tion, appears very plainly in reflecting upon the na¬ 
ture and origin of the errors. For instance, it is 
very easy to conceive a combination of two yards of 
the present form; one of which shall be a certain 
minute quantity longer, and the other, the same 
quantity shorter, than the standard. When they are 
compared with the standard, the reading will be the 
same as that of the standard; and this, if uncor- 


20G 


EQUATION FOR CORRECTIONS. 


rected, would shew both to be of the right length; 
although^ by the hypothesis; one is too long and the 
other equally too short. Thus a reading would be 
accepted for both; which is true for neither. Again, if 
a yard which is short by a certain small quantity (*) 
be combined with an exact yard and both be com¬ 
pared with the standard; the immediate reading will 
shew both to be short by a certain quantity (*); 
although in fact; one is exactly right and the other 
wrong by double the quantity read off. The same 
thing will occur; only in the opposite sense, with a 
yard too long. Thus yard No. 1, which was ac¬ 
cepted as about uriinr of an inch too long; has affected 
erroneously; and in the sense of excess; every read¬ 
ing made in combination with it, by tAh <r of an inch. 
In general; every combination of a yard in excess, 
tends to give the reading too long; every combina¬ 
tion of a yard in defect, to make the reading too 
short. And the reading is to be corrected, there¬ 
fore, by subtracting the half-sum of the errors, on 
whichever side they may be. Or, to express it by 
symbols and with the signs as I used them, if ^ be 
the ultimate reduction of the micrometer-readings, 
f the quantity in defect, and —* the quantity in ex¬ 
cess; the corrected reading, m, will be found by 
making 



Of course in each equation, regard must be had to 


PROBABILITIES IN FAVOR OF THE EdUATION. 207 

the signs of the micrometer-readings, (which are 
here given positive,) as well to those of the numera¬ 
tor of the fractional correction. 

It was upon these considerations and in this man¬ 
ner, that the corrections were applied throughout. 
The value given for any yard by combination with 
No. 1, corrected for the excess of said No. 1, gave 
the elementary correction for it; to be used with the 
similar correction ascribed to the three other yards 
with which it was independently combined. The 
number of such independent combinations being 
(say) 32, with 3 in each groupe, and the number of 
combinations with No. 1 being 32 also, it follows 
that the correction makes itself felt in very nearly 
200 different cases; and, the differences produced 
by it being all far within the maximum correction 
for temperature, it follows also that the chance of 
error in any one corrected value, is the yys of the 
possible error in its direct readings. 

I shall only offer farther, in illustration, the actual 
process for one groupe of cases. 

Extract from the Journal; shewing the method of 
Correcting the readings . 

No. 5, correction : e =r + 0.000042. 

readings in inches. corrections. sum of corr. corr. reading, 

with No. 7. + 0.000146 : + 0.000051+0.000021 : + 0.000072 : + 0.000074 
« 13. + 0.000470 : + 0.000019 + 0.000021 : + 0.000040 : + 0.000430 
“ 22. + 0.000316 : — 0.000114 + 0.000021 : — 0.000093 : + 0.000409 


mean 


+ 0.000311 


corrected mean + 0.000304 






208 


NUMERICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 


No. 7, correction : e zzi -}- 0.0000102. 

readings in inches. corrections. sumofcorr. corr. reading, 

with No. 5. + 0.000146 as before + 0.000074 

« 30. 4 - 0.000088 : 0.000000 + 0.000051 : + 0.000051 : + 0.000037 

“ ^ + 0.000112 : — 0.000019 + 0.000051 . + 0.000032 : + 0.000080 

mean + 0.000115 corrected mean -j- 0.000064 


No. 13, correction : e ~ + 0.000038. 
with No. 5. -|- 0.000470 as before : -j- 0.000430 

“ 7. + 0.000372 : + 0.000051 +0.000019 : +0.000070 : +0.000302 
“ 22. + 0.000439 : — 0.000115 + 0.000019 : — 0.000096 : +0.000535 

mean + 0.000427 corrected mean + 0.000422 


No. 22, correction : v — — 0.000230. 

with No. 5. + 0.000316 as before + 0.000409 

« 13. + 0.000439 as before + 0.000535 

« 16. + 0.000452 : + 0.000055 — 0.000115 : —0.000060 : +0.000512 

mean + 0.000402 corrected mean + 0.000485 

I think it will be manifest now, that in this way 
the several yards have been made to develope their 
own errors; and to measure themselves in the same 
manner in which, as standards, they will hereafter 
measure the yards in common use that may be ap¬ 
plied to them. It only remains to present in one 
view, the final value of each; as compared with the 
United States standard, and also with the absolute 
mean yard which it and they all aim to represent. 

The certificate accompanying the U. S. standard 
states its excess above the mean yard to be — 0.000307 
inch; and a memorandum is given of the comparison 
with Trough ton’s scale having been made at a tem¬ 
perature of 63°.27 F. By the nearness of the deci- 














CORRECTION FOR EXPANSION OF U. S. STANDARD. 209 


mal, which could not have been read on the ther¬ 
mometers, this was most likely a mean temperature; 
from which neither of the pieces varied materially. 
And it was proper to state the temperature, in view 
of a future ascertainment of the expansion; when 
the reading might, if necessary, be reduced to the 
standard temperature of 62° F. In such near tem¬ 
peratures, however, the ratios of expansion of dif¬ 
ferent kinds of brass would not vary appreciably; 
and the chief motive in noting it was, I presume, for 
the use of comparisons that might hereafter be made 
with copies of a different metal. I should never¬ 
theless, had there been any means of knowing posi¬ 
tively the expansion of Mr. Hassler’s brass, have 
thought it fit to have applied the correction in the 
present comparisons; for the most of them were 
made at temperatures of 51° to 53°.5, between which 
and 63°.27 the difference is enough to make a varia¬ 
tion in rational expansion quite sensible. Taking 
Hassler’s prescribed factor and my own ascertained 
one respectively, the variation upon the yard at 
52°.25, is upwards of Timur of an inch,—a quan¬ 
tity fully observable. I did not, however, consider 
myself justified at present in admitting the former 
factor; and although, from the whole scope of all the 
observations, I esteem the real expansion of the U. 
S. standard as higher (instead of lower) than our 
own, I regarded all the pieces employed, as being 
influenced by changes of temperature uniformly, and 
28 


210 


FINAL RESULTS 


expanding or contracting at the same rate. The 
values of the present yards, therefore, which are 
given below, are to be considered as referring to the 
standard temperature of 62° F. 


Table shewing the final 



readings in excess 

Value in inches 

No. 

or defect of the 

in regard to 


U. S. Standard. 

U. S. Standard. 

1 . 

— 0.000203 

36.000203 

2. 

-f- 0.000113 

35.999887 

3. 

— 0.000048 

36.000048 

4. 

+ 0.000122 

35.999S7S 

5. 

+ 0.000304 

35.999696 

6. 

— 0.000130 

36.000130 

7. 

4- 0.000061 

35.999939 

8. 

4- 0.0002S0 

35.999720 

9. 

— 0.000046 

36.000046 

10. 

+ 0.000208 

35.999792 

11. 

— 0.000027 

36.000027 

12. 

4- 0.000200 

35.999800 

13. 

4- 0.000422 

35.999578 

14. 

+ 0.000185 

35.999815 

15. 

4- 0.000156 

35.999844 

16. 

4- 0.000385 

35.999615 

17. 

4- 0.000163 

35.999837 

18. 

4 - 0.000419 

35.999581 

19. 

4- 0.000235 

35.999765 

20. 

4 - 0.000471 

35.999529 

21. 

4 - 0.000314 

35.999686 

22. 

4 - 0.000485 

35.999515 

23. 

4 - 0.000123 

35.999877 

24. 

4- 0.000266 

35.999734 

25. 

4 - 0.000302 

35.999698 

26. 

— 0.000196 

36.000196 

27. 

4- 0.000007 

35.999993 

28. 

— 0.000182 

36.000182 

29. 

— 0.000132 

36.000132 

30. 

4- 0.000179 

35.999821 

SO 1 . 

4 - 0.000258 

35.999742 

30 2 . 

4 - 0.000109 

35.999891 


Value of the Yards . 

Correction for Value in inches 

excess of in regard to the 

U. S. Standard. Legal mean Yard. 

— 0.000307 36.000510 

36.000194 
36.000355 
36.000185 
36.000003 
36.000437 
36.000246 
36.000027 
36.000353 
36.000099 
36.000334 
36.000107 
35.999885 
36.000122 
36.000151 
35.999922 
36.000144 
35.999888 
36.000072 
35.999836 
35.999993 
35.999822 
36.000184 
36.000041 
36.000005 
36.000503 
36.000300 
36.000489 
36.000439 
36.000128 
36.000049 
36.000198 





EXPLANATION OF THE APPARATUS ACCOMPANYING THE 

STANDARD-YARDS; WITH INSTRUCTIONS AS TO SAFE¬ 
KEEPING AND USE IN COMPARISONS. 

The standard is enclosed in a mahogany-box; which, unless in 
use, should be kept fastened by all its clasps and laid away in its 
outer soft-wood case. 

The standard is retained in place in the box by means of two 
brass pins underneath; which enter two holes symmetrically worked 
in its lower face. The butting-ends are thus kept from contact 
with any part of the box. 

The lid of the box is always supposed to be opened from you. 
In this position the matrix-end of the standard is on the left-hand. 
The block of wood, immediately adjoining (but not touching) the 
matrix-end on its right, is moveable upon being lifted vertically. 
The object of this block is to protect the face of the matrix-end. 
Care should be taken in removing and replacing it, not to let it 
touch that face. 

To the right of the other end of the standard and at the extreme 
right of the box, there is a hard-steel cutter; and beneath it a brass 
square, with a handle. It is rebated on its under-face, so as to fit 
on and be guided by the inner edge of the standard. On its outer 
arm, there is a bevelled cut; in the centre of which a strong line 
has been drawn. If the square be applied to the standard, and this 
line be made to correspond with one that will be found about | of 
an inch from the right-hand end of the standard and reaching 
nearly half-way across, the square edge and the end of the stand¬ 
ard will be exactly in the same vertical place. After the cutter is 
taken up, the square can be lifted out by its handle. 

The bed for the cutter is a moveable block; which can itself be 
lifted, like the block at the other end of the box. When both are 
so lifted out, there is no obstacle to a rod or bar, of any length, 
being applied at one extremity to the matrix-end of, and being laid 
parallel with, the standard. 

In the pit, enclosed between these two blocks, there are four 
loose slips of mahogany, lettered a, b, c and d, respectively. 


212 


EXPLANATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS 


They are intended for being placed, as required, under the yard¬ 
stick or measure to be compared; in order to raise its face even 
with that of the standard. When the lid is shut down and clamped, 
it keeps them fast in the pit. 


INSTRUCTIONS. 

1. Do not touch the standard with an uncovered hand. 

2. Do not touch it at all, when it is about to be used in compari¬ 
son; otherwise than to wipe its surface and ends lightly, if it 
appears necessary. There will be, in general, no occasion for taking 
the standard apart from the apparatus. If it must be so taken apart 
however at any time, first take out every other moveable piece 
about the apparatus; then shut down and clamp the lid; turn the 
box over on the top, unclamp, and lift up the bottom as if it were 
the lid. The standard will be now found detached, lying on its 
face. 

3. For thus wiping it, use a piece of doe-skin, chamois, or other 
soft leather. 

4. For comparisons (in trying a common yard-stick, for instance,) 
the proper method is as follows: Open the box with its lid from 
you: take out all moveable pieces: lay the yard-stick in the pit (but 
not touching the matrix-end of the standard) to see the difference 
in thickness between that and the standard: make up that difference 
with some or all of the lettered slips, so that the faces of the 
standard and the yard-stick shall come to be even: take the brass- 
square by its handle and apply it to the interior edge of the stand¬ 
ard, pressing the yard-stick against it at the same time—the rebate 
keeps the yard-stick at the proper distance from the standard: slide 
the square along the standard for a foot or two, and the yard-stick 
will become parallel with the standard: keeping it parallel, push its 

.left end gently against the matrix-end of the standard; slide the 
square to the other end of the standard; make the lines on it and 
on the standard before spoken of to coincide; and you have, by the 
edge of the square, the line of the true yard. If the yard-stick falls 
to the left hand of that line, it is too short; and it should be re¬ 
jected. If on the other hand it is too long,—holding every thing 
firmly by the left hand resting on the square, take the steel cutter 





ACCOMPANYING THE STANDARD-YARDS. 


213 


in the right hand and by that portion of the square edge resting on 
the yard-stick, cut the line of the true yard; down to which the 
stick may be afterwards rasped and filed. 

5. The same method of placing the measure and of using the 
square and cutter, of course, applies to the obtaining of any distance 
(other than a yard) which is graduated on the standard: only, in this 
case, the square edge must be made to coincide with the gradua¬ 
tions—the line for the yard is inapplicable. 

6. To save time and trouble in substituting the lettered pieces, for 
bringing the faces of the yard-stick or foot rule in comparison even 
with that of the standard, use the following table: 


If the measure be If the measure be 


inch thick, 

take a —|— b —J— c —j— d 

■j 9 t inch thick, take b -f- c 

i • • 

B + C + D 

1 

. . A —|— C 

tV • 

• A —j— C —j— D 


. . D 

3 

•8 • 

. A -J— B -|— D 

3 

¥ 

. C 

tV • 

. C f D 

II • 

. . B 

Y • 

. B + D 

7 

Y 

. . A 


A measure of tV thick, will hardly come into comparison; and 
one of T \, could not have been provided for without a special addi¬ 
tional piece. In either case, however, the combination of all the 
pieces will answer. 









































I 
















■ - M 

'■ m i 















































. 





i 














. 

. 




















-*• 









• • 

* . 




■ 

* > 

v ; f* 























■ ■ ■ ■ 























- 









» 



































































































































* 
















\ . '•* 

- ' 


* 


V 






* *■ 


X 

\ *'• 

•• • > *•*" 

i* *V . / 

' ...* 

• : ♦ * . . - . v 


















’ ilt* ’. * 

y *■■:*'■' ■ 

♦ ■ . 


















* 


« 

<1 




\ 


: * 

■ \ : • 







